CLARIFYING THE
PURPOSEFULLY OBSCURED
"The Truth About The Zohar As Qabalah"

The Irrefutable Issue of Ribbi Reshayoth: The Illegal
"Multiplicity of Reigning Powers"

"And we say that we shall not
unite 2 Gods in G-D or 5 Gods in G-D or 10 Gods in G-D, nor shall we have
anything to do with such Divine Unifications. For this reason it is prohibited
to speak of Divine emanated levels and categories. Any such levels or categories
necessarily become a Multiplicity of reigns and Divisions in God, G-D forbid.
Moses, the teacher of us all, taught ‘Be of a pure and simple heart with the
Lord, your God’ and he taught ‘The hidden things are to the Lord, your God,
while the revealed things are for us and for our children’.

RMb"M zs’l: "There is no oneness at all except in
believing that there is one simple Essence in which there is no complexity or
multiplicity of notions, but one notion only; so that from what-ever angle you
regard it and from whatever point of view you consider it, you will find that it
is one, not divided in any way and by any cause into two notions" (MN 1:51)

RMb"M zs’l: God is not two or more entities, but a
single entity of a oneness even more single and unique than any single thing in
creation. His oneness is not like that of a single type which consists of many
individuals [like the oneness of a species], and nor is it like the oneness of
the body, which incorporates many parts, but His oneness is absolutely unique,
and there is nothing else in existence with a oneness like His. Had God been
more than a single entity, then all of them would have physical bodies, for
entities equal in existence differ only in bodily matters. If the Creator did
have a body He would have had weaknesses and an end, for it is impossible for a
physical body that has no end to exist. The strength of something that has
weaknesses and an end also has an end, and a limit. The strength of our God is
not like the strength of the body, for it has no end or pause, and perpetually
guides the sphere. Since He has no body He has no bodily appearance, and cannot
be sub-divided into different parts - therefore, it is impossible for Him to be
anything other than one. It is a positive commandment to know this, for it is
written, "...the Lord is our God, the Lord is one".(Mishneh Torah: Yesod HaTorah:
1:7)

"If
you have understanding you will comprehend that which our sages pointed out.
They have clearly stated that the Divine Chariot (the mysteries of Torah)
includes matters too deep and too profound for the ordinary intellect. It has
been shown that a person favored by providence with reasons to understand these
mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except viva voce, and on
condition that the pupil possess certain qualifications, and even then only the
heads of the sections may be communicated. This has been the cause why the
knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared from our nation and nothing
has remained of it."
(Rabenu Moshe - Mosheh ben Maimon
zs"l - Moreh Nevuhhim
- 1160 CE).

“Glory then to Him who is such that when the intellects contemplate His essence, their apprehension turns into incapacity; and when they contemplate the proceeding of His actions from His will, their knowledge turns into ignorance; and when the tongues aspire to magnify Him by means of attributive qualifications, all eloquence turns into weariness and incapacity!” (RMb"M: MN 1:58)

"Do you really think you can reach the final understanding
of G-D?"(Job 11,7)

SITE ADMIN's INTRO

"This
has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared
from our nation and nothing has remained of it." (Guide)

"It would
have been superfluous thus to dilate on this subject, were it not for the mass
of the people who are accustomed to such ideas." (Guide)

QUESTION to the ZOHAR Mystic: Do you honestly
believe that man is capable of bridging the gap between the finite and infinity (G-D)?
Even though the term infinity may be limiting (in terms of describing HaShem who
is not numerically defined or divided), we shall stick with it during this
article for the sake of reason and logic.

ANSWER: This was the challenge the Qabalists
sought to overcome. They actually believed (ie: still believe) it was possible to bridge this gap
with their emanation dogma. But as you will see proven below (based on early
historical sources and logic), HaShem (G-D) actually created the Kavode (a revelation of the Divine Presence)
for this very purpose...to give our limited, finite, wise
men something to
behold, as no mortal man can actually reach the infinite Creator. As stated
above, the keepers of the chariot (ie: the genuine mystical tradition) no longer exist.

So let your tongues and
heart be still. And for goodness sake, stop giving money over to the big
lie- "the business of selling the Zohar". The translation of Mori Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh
El Qafahh's "Milhamoth HaShem" (that is quoted below) is accurate--and
thus relevant to this article.
(Site Admin.)

He [the rabbi] said, "isn't it forbidden [what you are doing]?? And
aren't those saphiHin?"

"[Yes, but] aren't you [the one] who permits it?!"

"Yes, [the rabbi answered] but didn't my colleagues disagree with me
[and overrule my opinion]?" And he recited over him [the passuq from
Qohalath 10], 'he who breaks a fence [of the rabbis], a snake will bite him.'
And so it happened. [HaShem fulfilled the word of the saintly Sadiq, and a snake
bit the man to death]"

This shows that Rabbi Shim'on ben YoHai, no matter WHAT he ruled, or WHAT he
wrote (or didn't write), subjugated himself to the majority opinion of the
Sanhedrin.

He may have held many opinions that could have veered far from his colleagues.
But he would NEVER agree to future generations relying on his words against the
accepted halakhah as it was codified.

And so, we must keep this in mind, before attributing anything to Rabbi
Shim'on ben Yohai. Surely, everything attributed to him would be in line with
the law.

This was taught to me by one of my masters.

The source, by the way is דף ו,ב פרק
א הלכה א גמרא

That is Yerushalmi, massakhath barakoth, daph wow, amudh bei, towards the very
end of the daf.

Parasha Tetsawah: The Avon
Ketz: Israel's Final Sin Of The Zohar

PURPOSE: Indeed, this is a very disturbing article. Most
of the content is taken from Milhamoth HaShem. This article intends to
unite Israel by defining the original and historical traditions and laws (ie:
dogma) that
have existed since the days of old. Using undeniable logic and accurate
historical data, we can retrace the thinking of the original, pre-mystical
(or should we call them the authentic Qabalistic) masters (ie: the Saadia Jaon and the RMb"M).
Afterall, the word Qaballah was originally understood as anything passed down
orally (even to the oral law). The very fact that G-D is above our understanding (indefinable) does
not dismiss us from the requirement to use logic (and other sciences) in our
never-ending quest to approach and know him (to the best of our capability).
Defining "what he is not" can only lead us to inescapable conclusions that
enhance our true understanding of His nature. So logic (as limiting as it is) will be used in this
article.

This
honest, religious, historic and factual analysis of the Zohar (and other
Qabalistic documents) aims to bring
us back (down) to our humble origins. This article is in no way meant to endorse those who
would use it to detract from today's Jewish Observant Rabbonim (may
they be blessed with long life, honesty, objectivity, accuracy, logic and success)...This article deals with one specific,
important snare. May G-D nullify attempts to use this article in a harmful
way. May G-D turn the enemy's curse into a complete blessing, as was done by Bilam in the the time of Balak. At the end of the day, we should strengthen
our resolve to study things that all Jews (across the board) agree with. Works
like the Mishna & Gemara, RMb"M's "Yad" (Mishna Torah), Midrash Rabbah & Gadol, Targum and many
others that make up the nuts and bolts of our faith. Please sit
up strait and take note. The
contents of this article should never be used as an excuse not to learn these
nuts and bolts with an Orthodox Hhevrah--even one in error regarding the
subject of this article. If the subject of this article
becomes your primary focus in life, you will spiritually falter (heaven forbid).
I've seen this happen before. But it is still important for you to understand
the concepts of this article. Because they are critical to the object of your
correct worship. They are critical to the basic definition (or non-definition) of our monotheistic G-D.

I stand by every word of this article despite the popularity (and sometimes obsession)
with the Zohar that exists today. If
this article comes off a bit sarcastic... I apologize in advance. Not all of the
content was written by me. But the concepts are solid. I have separately verified the English translation of Milhamoth HaShem (I quote and paraphrase below). The following article is dedicated to
all my friends and family (may they live many long, happy, Jewish years bli
ayn hara). We have to be honest and clear about what Judaism believed (originally)--and
what has been illegally added since then. The "Onis Probandi" always rests on the new
thing--not the other way around. This is logical. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In this weeks Parasha Tetsawah --
Shemoth 28:42 says the following about the Holy
Priests: "and you shall make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their
nakedness"

On this verse, the RMb"M
says the following: "The custom of the idolaters to
expose their nakedness during their worship is well known. Our priests were therefore
commanded to wear breeches during their service, and even then not to ascend to the altar
on steps, so as not to reveal their nakedness." Guide 3:46

In the "olden days", the practices of avodah zorah (idol worship)
were well known. They stood out like a sore thumb. Their (outwardly) idolatrous
cults made them
easy to identify. Thus, Jewish Priests would avoid emulating it in their service. Indeed the pure
monotheistic faith was strong and true in those days. Although Ancient Judaism
has had bouts with idol worship (on and off) throughout its' history, Israel has
always returned to the worship of the one true G-D.

Todays avodah zorah
(idolatry) is more subtle and hidden from the world. In addition,
todays violations are a bit more elusive then they used to be. As a shocking result,
avodah zorah has managed to penetrate observant Jewish communities
throughout the world (without their knowledge) in modern times. Please read the previous sentence one more time before
continuing According to the Hhacham from Saana, Yemen --Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh
El Qafahh
zs'l,
there is a new danger on todays horizon that came to us in the form of an
extremely controversial book of so-called "Jewish mysticism" --known simply as the
"Zohar" .

But how could this be? Is Rabbi
Qafahh zs"l calling the greatest Rabbonim (of the past four
hundred years) idolaters for espousing the doctrines of the Zohar... Is this possible ?
How could a mystical work like the Zohar (which was accepted by most "Gedolim"
for the past 400 years) be
idolatrous ? Could the Rabbonim have actually missed something? How is this whole thing possible? To
believers in the Trinity (l'h), it sounds possible, but to pious and scholarly Jews who spend
their days in contemplating the precious meanings of the Torah, how is it possible?

Rav Qafahh
zs"l answers to this in one place: If it
were not possible that the heads of Israel fall into error concerning an idolatrous sin,
why would it be provided by the Torah that in the case an idolatrous sin hidden to the
eyes of all the heads of the congregation (ie: the Sanhedrin or Nasi), a sin offering must be brought etc. ? The Torah
exclaims that an idolatrous sin might be perpetrated even by all Israel without it being
recognized until after the fact (Lev 4 &
Numbers 15) .

Obviously those who follow the Zohar
do not bow down to crass graven images. They bow down, instead, to extremely
sophisticated graven mental images and concepts, but they are unaware of its
idolatry. The sin of the fathers is always subtle, otherwise no one would fall
into its clutches.

Please sit back and relax. Take off your shoes and clean your feet. Drink some
chamomile or Green tea if you must. But please try to fully absorb a point of view that comes
straight from the leader of one of the most pristine forms of Yehadut (Judaism) on the planet ---
The Yemenite Jews . But more importantly, it comes from the Saadia Jaon and
RMb"M. If you would like a quick background about
the Yemenite Jews, click here:

The Zohar and Idol
Worship: Ashkenaz, Sepharadic and Temani Views

Today, many fully Torah-observant Jews (usually Temanim,
Italian,
Spanish Portuguese and certain Ashkenaz Jews) continue to reject the Zohar (in principle) for a number of different
reasons, despite a continuous wave of pressure from their Jewish brethren around the world.
In addition, there are differing views amongst the Ashkenazim over which parts
of the Zohar MAY or many not be authentic, varying from partial to total
rejection as well. To be clear, these groups represent the most pristine
remnants of our faith. There were not new reformers, as many historical
revisionists claim. Neither are they warriors. They are simply warm and loving
Jews (just like the masses), who strongly desire to purify the derekh. There
Judaism (while halakha focused) can be just as warm and beautiful as can be.

Some of this pressure against
these views is caused by the enormous amount of money that has been made from
the espousing and selling of the Zohar--and related "products". If you
question it, you are instantly blackballed as a heretic by most. As a result of the Zohar's popularity,
influence and persecution, many of these
Hhahhamim (in
recent times) have opted to address (non-controversial) religious issues in the
Zohar (in their Torah commentaries), in order to enhance their shaky political
standing. Some who see the problems, refuse to speak out - because they are
rightfully concerned about unity. At best, the Zohar is regarded as a
disputed Midrash by the larger masorah. Other opinions within the masorah regard it as a
dangerous, idolatry-laden forgery, as has always been held by the remnants. It should be noted that the Temanim are not
alone in this view. Nor were they the first to espouse it--as was done from the
Zohar's inception. It should also be noted that most groups in Yemen
who did FULLY accept the Zohar (like most groups throughout the world) abandoned their ancient
Nusahh (prayer
gate/book)--which was passed down from generation to generation. In Yemen, this
equated to the acceptance of a controversial Syrian "concoction"
--known as the Shammi Nusahh.. This should have rung a warning bell
right away. Anything that claims to trump an ancient existing nusahh or Jewish law should be regarded with deep suspicion. In fact,
it was by many in the Ashkenaz and Western Sefaradi (Andalusian) world. There was never an argument
made against an existing nusahh that said "you made a mistake in the
transmission or accuracy" of your nusahh. They could not dare say this. It was
always..."here is the new revelation that replaces it". Or "this is
better". Or "this 13th gate (Nusahh) is for everyone now because we can no
longer be sure of what tribe we come from". This is not the place to discuss the negative effects of the Zohar on the common, Jewish People of Yemen as it would take too long.
Here, we are not talking about the trampling of an ancient nusahh or the
lowering of an already impoverished people into an even lower standard of
living, in the name of Lauranic or Zohar Mysticism. That will be another article. Rather, this is the dogmatic side
of the argument against undeniably idolatrous concepts within the Zohar. Anyone
that says the ideas in this article have been disproved (since then) or were
(are) based on false notions of what "real Qabalah" is has been duped
with circular reasoning --with all due respect. The Moreh who wrote this was an
expert on Zohar. The Yemenites had Zohar in their face for over 400 years. And
yes, it was the same Zohar. People who say they didn't have the "real Zohar" at the
time are deluding themselves. The Zohar in Yemen was the same (in terms of
idolatrous concepts) as it was in Spain and the rest of the world. It is still
the same. In recent times, they are saying that it was taken too literally in
Yemen. Again, this is pure nonsense.

I have taken the liberty to quote and paraphrase different sections and ideas from Milhamoth
HaShem, THE HOLY WARS of G-D by Chief Yemenite Rabbi Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh
Qafahh zs'l, in order to demonstrate the prohibition of RIBUI RESHAYOT a
multiplicity of reigns against which the Sages (including the RMb"M), of blessed memory, warned
against. I will start with an introduction to this subject by someone claiming
to be a Talmid of ha-Moreh Hhaim Wenna from Sana Yemen--although it sure
seems that this individual went off the derekh with all of his dreams, pacts and
donkeys.. But the introduction is solid.

A thorough reading of this article should allow you to
understand the main points of the argument--even if you have not been fully indoctrinated
with the concepts of the Zohar.

"And we say that we shall not unite 2 Gods in
G-D or 5 Gods in G-D or 10 Gods in G-D, nor shall we have anything to do with such Divine Unifications. For this reason it is
prohibited to speak of Divine emanated levels and categories. Any such levels or
categories necessarily become a Multiplicity of reigns and Divisions in God, G-D forbid.
Moses, the teacher of us all, taught Be of a pure and simple heart with the Lord,
your God and he taught The hidden things are to the Lord, your God, while the
revealed things are for us and for our children.

All this is not Torah, nor Prophets nor Tradition. How did such
scholars of the Torah fall into such a blatantly idolatrous theology? It is essential that the faith of Israel, which is the pure faith of Abraham, our
father, and the faith revealed in the Holy Torah and in Jewish tradition, be clarified and
purified so that it be totally uncontaminated by extraneous doctrines of human intellect
which deviate from the truth. Only when Israels faith is pure can it be a light of
the true faith for the world, a world the majority of which has yet to purify its many
forms of idolatry.

And the subtle blind sin of attaching the names of
G-D to the Ten
Emanated Sfirot of the Zohar was the (same kind of) sin of the fathers of the generation of Enosh. And the
desire to construct a spiritual building (explanation) that would bind G-D in heaven to the world below
and bring the final redemption, as has been the Qabalistic daring in the past 400 years,
was an undesired and hateful building, as the city and the Tower of Babel, and its true
intentions are based on the foolish arrogance to bring the Final Redemption,
instead of waiting for the Signs of G-D who chooses the Final Goel and decides the time of
the revelation of the Final Redemption. And the sin of deifying the Ten emanated Sfirot
derives from the sin of the Mixed Multitude who, for reason of the idolatrous concepts
retained from Egyptian theology, would have deified the Ten Commandments
turning them into Ten Divine Emanations, had Moses not thrown them down and shattered them
to pieces, so as to destroy the sin in its source. And the sin of the rabbis of these
generations who have been beguiled by the Zohars Serpent Cunning and simply have had
their eyes covered and have not understood the idolatrous mistakes involved, is the sin of
Aaron who unwittingly erred and did not understand the idolatrous roots behind the
Mixed-multitudes desire for the golden calf. This sin has returned for its final
purification, so as to clear the way for the final redemption. For all these reasons together, it was foreseen by the Prophets of
Israel that Israel would fall into AVON KETZ, the sin of the Last Days of Judgment,
while the purification of Israel from that sin would represent the return of Israel to its
true G-D at the time of the complete redemption. It represents the Last Terrible Sin of
Israel. If it had to come out, this is because it had to be purified before the true faith
might reign in the world.

Sefer Milhhamot Ha-Shem provides all the necessary keys to understanding the basic
principles upon which this false Qabalah has been constructed. The author has
ingeniously interspersed his book with citations from the Qabalists and the essential
tenets upon which the citation is based on the one hand and the counter citations from the
Torah, the Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud, the Geonim and Rishonim etc. on the other. The
profound result is that the reader will gain an understanding of the true nature of their
Qabalistic system from which he will clearly be able to distinguish between the True
Qabalahh of the Written and Oral Law and between the beliefs of the false Qabalahh. If the
reader will at first be amazed at the striking dichotomy, he will shortly become aware of
the incredible perspicacity with which The Moreh Qafahh zs'l has seized upon the undeniable
principles of their Qabalistic system and its direct contradiction to the True Tradition
of Israels faith.

So too the tragic historic error of the High Priest Aaron in the face
of the golden calf, is prophetically called up into its new final position so as to show
to all of the scandalized Israel concerned for the Torah and honor of so many Qabalistic
authors of saintly memory etc., that Aaron himself fell and did not understand the great
error of the mixed-multitude. Prophetically it happened again. The Avon Ketz of the Fourth
Generation is also the Last Golden Calf of History and the Rabbinate and the saintly
scholars who fell into the subtle trap, as Aaron, did (do) not understand the idolatrous ideas
and doctrines that lay in the Doctrine of Emanation of the Zohar.

Just this understanding is necessary for the correction of Israels Sin of the
Last Days of Judgment. Just as Aaron had to admit before Moses that he had not understood
the evil that lurked within the idolatrous tendency of the mixed-multitude, so must
many (not all) of the
heads of Rabbinate Judaism lower their heads before the knowledge of Milhhamot Ha-Shem
against the false Qabalahh and to understand their great error. Repentance from this sin
on the part of the heads of Israel represents nothing less than the first entrance of the
Jewish people into its Final Redemption.

These so-called Zoharists have considered the Infinite
G-D Who Is (EIN SOF) and G-D the Maker
("Zeir Anpin") as two separate God-heads, the latter being an emanated Existence in the
form of a Spiritual Cosmic Man-God who is the Ruler and king over
all the worlds. A clear violation of the Torah's Ribi Reshayoth (a
multiplicity of reigns) according
to the Torah.

The following piece (below)
was taken from translation of Milhamoth Hashem.

by the Hhacham from
Saana, Yemen
MORI YIHHYAH BAN SHLOMOH
Qafahh
ZS'L
Taken from an actual translation from Hebrew into English and comments (in parenthesis)

INTRODUCTION FROM THE SITE ADMIN:
According to Mori, you don't need to be an expert in Zohar to understand these
things. Study these pages a few times and you will clearly see it. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the idolatrous doctrines to which we
refer derive from the concept of Atzilut -Emanation. It is essential to the Sacred Wars
that one may not speak of levels or categories in G-D above or before the Act of creation.
This fact will help the reader not to get confused. We are really not interested in what
the Qabalists say concerning their Worlds of creation, Formation and Action. But in
formulating any categories or levels above the level of creation, idolatrous doctrines are
created, doctrines when translated are closer to the Divine Emanations in the
Hind-u
religion than to the pure Monotheistic faith of Judaism. In comparison to Christianity,
once we know that the Johns doctrine of the Logos represents a false theology,
making Jesus the Instrument of G-Ds creation, we are no longer interested in all
the rest of Johns theology concerning Jesus.

A description of the idolatrous doctrines of the Zohar
"The Etz Hhaim and the Mikdash Melech in the name of Yitzhak Luria states: The Cause of
all causes is Adam Kadmon, The Cause over all other causes. Explanation: When we say
the Cause of causes this pertains to each partzuf and is so called because it
is the cause of those causes below it. But when we say the Cause of all causes, this is
Adam Kadmon, the First Cause of all the partzufim."

Thus is it explained in the
philosophical words of the Zohar and its commentators, that the G-D who gave permission to
R. Shimon b. Yohai (to speak about what is prohibited even to think about, namely a multiplicity
in God) is Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu called "Atik". This, however, is not the one
(according to Zohar) who said to
Israel Behold now that it is I etc. Since the one who said to Israel
Behold now is ADAM KADMON, the First Cause of all the partzufim who has not
from whom to take permission.

Likewise, the one who said Let there be light Let there be a
firmament Let the waters gather etc. is called 'Aba' (in Zohar), but the one who said Let us make
a man in our image is 'Ema'. For Ema said to Aba Let us make a man but
Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu (Aba) did not agree to his creation until she said to him "What
difference is it to you, if he sins it is against me that he sins, as it states A
foolish son is the anguish of his mother but not the anguish of his father.

So was he created against the will of Aba and, as the Shvilei Noga explains: If Aba had
agreed to his creation, he would not have banished her from Gan Eden together
with him when he sinned, but because he had not agreed, he banished her as well.
" [Comment from Site Admin: Take some ten gods from the Greek Pantheon and instead of the
contents of the Greek myths, substitute them with verses of the Torah and Tradition, and
you too could write a Zohar ]

Back to the Introduction:

We, however, who believe in His Oneness to which there is no like in all other entities
of one, From all the above mentioned statements of the Zohar and its
commentators, we see that they call to each "partzuf" of the World of Emanation with the
Tetragrammaton (the ineffable four letter name of G-D that is not taken lightly), with ADONAI, with ELOHIM and with HA-KADOSH BARUCH HU (the Holy One,
Blessed is He). They have, however, chosen out the last partzuf "Zeir Anpin" to serve. They
say as well that the "EIN SOF" and all the other partzufim emanated from it are not to be
served or prayed to because of their great exaltedness. How much more so the partzufim in
those worlds above the world of Emanation for reason of their great hiddenness.

(According to them): Only "Zeir Anpin" can be served and called to in the hour of need, for He is
the Middle-Pillar which joins all the forces from above and from below. He was
raised by Aba and Ema and given Rule over all the creations which,
in their turn, were commanded to serve and to bless Him. And this, according to them, is
the Lord, our God, G-D save us! Let us now look at the Zohar (Balak) with the commentary
of Mikdash Melech on the verse He who withholds grain shall be cursed by the
nation (monea bar yikvuhu leum) -

[Admin comment: The Fourth Generation (this one) is also the time of the Great Purification of the faith for the
world. How much more so is it essential that the faith of Israel, which is the pure
faith of Abraham, our father, and the faith revealed in the Holy Torah and in Jewish
tradition, be clarified and purified so that it be totally uncontaminated by extraneous
doctrines of human intellect which deviate from the truth. Only when Israels faith
is pure can it be a light of the true faith for the world, a world the majority of which
has yet to purify its many forms of idolatry.]

Just this understanding is necessary for the correction of Israels Sin of the
Last Days of Judgment. Just as Aaron had to admit before Moses that he had not understood
the evil that lurked within the idolatrous tendency of the mixed-multitude, so must
(many of) the
heads of Rabbinate Judaism lower their heads before the knowledge of Milhhamot Ha-Shem
against the false Qabalah and to understand their great error. Repentance from this sin
on the part of the heads of Israel represents nothing less than the first entrance of the
Jewish people into its Final Redemption.

Heaven forbid: The Qabalists have considered the Infinite
G-D Who Is (EIN SOF) and God the Maker ("Zeir Anpin") as two separate "God-heads", the latter being an emanated
existence in the form of a Spiritual Cosmic Man-God who is the
ruler and king over all the worlds. As one might beseech a king to grant him his desire,
for it is in the kings power to give, so are prayers to be directed to the king of
the world, and not therefore to the First Cause of all existence.

The Hacham R.
Qafahh
zs'l demonstrates
prophetically and exactly
that PLACING THE NAMES OF G-D ON TEN emanated SFIROT TO BE CALLED TO AS SHARING IN HIS
GODLINESS, WHILE BEING CLOSER TO US AND WITHIN OUR REACH WHEREAS THE INFINITE EIN SOF, THE
HIGHER INFINITE G-D ABOVE, IS ABOVE THE REACH OF ALL BEING, IS EXACTLY THE SAME SIN OF THE
GENERATION OF ENOSH--IDOLATRY.

Indeed the introductory letters of Rav
Qafahh
zs'l are all intended to ask
the Zohar-Qabalist how such a metaphysical concept ever came to be considered a
true theology of the Jewish Faith? Our service and our prayers to G-D are not to be
directed to the Higher Infinite Light but rather to the emanated "Zeir Anpin" (the
Contracted Cosmic Man-G-D of the World of Emanation). Why didnt Moses, our teacher,
tell us about it, rebukes the Rav, or why didnt the Prophets of Israel explain it to
us so as to correct our error? Why did they let us waste our time and energy praying to
the Higher Infinite G-D who is not interested in our prayers?

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the idolatrous doctrines to which we
refer derive from the concept of Atzilut -Emanation. It is essential to the Sacred Wars
that one may not speak of levels or categories in G-D above or before the Act of creation.
This fact will help the reader not to get confused. We are really not interested in what
the Qabalists say concerning their Worlds of creation, Formation and Action. But in
formulating any categories or levels above the level of creation, idolatrous doctrines are
created, doctrines when translated are closer to the Divine Emanations in the
Hind-u
religion than to the pure Monotheistic faith of Judaism.

This is pure kifrut, exclaims ha-Mori
Qafahh zs'l, and it corresponds exactly to the
prohibition of RIBUI RESHAYOT a multiplicity of reigns against
which the Sages, of blessed memory, warned in many instances.

*Rav Qafahh zs'l throws brimstone and fire against the idolatrous
connotations of such a division of emanated Godheads which is closer to the Greek Pantheon
than to the second Commandment.

IMPORTANT:
It should be pointed out that Rabbi Yichyah Qafahh's grandson (Mori Yusef zs'l)
took a different view of the Zohar that bordered on being silent, as opposed to
that of his
grandfather's approach. The younger Qafahh (while still opposing the Zohar as
avodah zorah) favored a more quiet approach for the sake of Shalom Bayith.
Throughout his life Rabbi Yosef Qafahh zs'l kept silent about the fierce schism
which existed in his community 80 years ago, but which left deep marks on his
own life. His stance was forced upon him by the Zohar-Qabalists. As a young man he was imprisoned on false charges by the Igashim, and
almost forced to convert to Islam. Immediately after his release at the age of
l9, he married and shortly thereafter emigrated to Israel.Please click here for instructions (from Grandpa Yichyah
Qafahh zs"l) on how he proposed to deal with the hidden sin of the new
qabalah...

Will the real ten sfiroth please stand up?

Site Admin: Yes... the ten sfiroth appear to exist
(as they are mentioned in Sefer Yesira--most likely a valid source of real Qabalahh)--but not in
the emanated form described by the new qabalists. In addition, Rav Qafahh zs'l says that
to describe, speak or write about the Ten Sfiroth is to falsify them. "Do
not search into that which is too wondrous for you" he said.

fr. ch. 67 of
Milhamoth HaShem--
R. Y. Qafahh zs’l:"The Shevilei
Emunah justly admonishes:-Let it not arise in your mind that you will be able to
perceive G-D by trying to study or to search into the knowledge of His Essence
or of His Essential (absolute) Truth. For this is impossible. On the contrary,
whoever attempts to enter into such a study is a blasphemer and a reviler. For
all that which exists has not the power to understand this. How much more so one
who is found in a material body. Therefore the Sages of blessed memory warned us
and said: Don't search into that which is too wondrous for you." Ironically, this verse comes from an ancient book called Ben Sira. It
eventually became corrupted and was thus thrown out of our authoritative books
of scripture. Perhaps this is more than ironic. No one here is arguing against
real Qabalah in principle (a true tradition of the Chariot that was 'received'). It is false Qabalah we struggle against.
---------------------------------------------

Site Admin:A few reliable (pre-Zohar) sources have given descriptions of
the sefiroth in the
past, but most of these references generate more questions than answers (in my
humble opinion). I have listed some of the references below (which I continue to
expand upon every week). Please don't stumble upon them or meditate on them for
two long. And by all means, do not let these quotes engulf your definition / concept of
G-D... because you will not truly understand them. Only a real oral tradition
could transmit them properly. And there is a huge doubt in my mind (and also RMb"M's mind) that anyone
has (had) this tradition anymore (see below).. Everything about the ten sefiroth is and should
remain a mystery. Any "apparent" contradictions that appear below
reflect a defect in our own knowledge.

The suggestion that the sefiroth were "created" is a whole other can of worms (which I am brave enough to explore below).
Because... once we hypothetically classify them as "created", there is no risk
(of multiple eminated gods) when discussing them. One could argue
(and a few great Rabbonim have) that "created
sefiroth" nullify the possibility of emanation (i.e.: a dividing of G-D--heaven forbid). Sounds like a great solution..right? Just remove
them from the world of emination and move them into the created realm--similar to the
non-physical (created) Angels.

One pitfall with this approach is that one must remember
that G-D has no need of any creation in order to create. So one who believes
them to be "created" can STILL NOT speak of them as having any creative potential
or rule. We
can't say that G-D needed or that his own creations were the creator. In the
end, one could argue that we do not know why HaShem created them--or did
many other things during the creation of our world. All and all, this problem is
not that big of a hurdle. By designating the function of the sefiroth as
"unknown", the "created sefiroth" theory passes the test in
flying colors. Just leave it alone. Ahhh... but that is not intellectually
satisfying.

The concept of created sefiroth can be compared
to the Divine Presense of G-D. Some of our sages (that hold this way) state that the sefiroth were
used by HaShem to make his Presence known to a finite man-because Man was/is
incapable of bridging the Infinite gap. I believe that Sefer Yessira
specifically says
that HaShem 'used' them (the Sefiroth). One explanation in Gamara and old
MidRaShYm states that HaShem teaches humanity lessons by
doing certain things. Perhaps that explains why he used them. For example, why did
G-D consult with the heavenly court before creating man? To show us that it is important to seek
counsel before doing things...not that he needed help in creating.

Below, we explore this concept further.

The other alternative:

The other alternative is to hold onto to the idea
that the ten sefiroth still fall
into the category of Pre-creation. Thus, the initial challenge faced by the new
Zohar-Qabbalists --of how to describe the Ten Sefiroth (pre-creation) without emanating
them (i.e.: and dividing HaShem) is unavoidable. This is a dangerous place to
be. Let's step backwards for a second and stop. We need to be very careful about
Ribbi Rishayoth (attributing a multiplicity to HaShem's reign) here (lehavdil).

At this point, most folks view this "spiritual stop sign"
as 'intellectually unsatisfying'. This is the
problem. How do we satisfy intellectual curiosity without splicing and dicing
the one indivisible G-D. At this point, the truly sensible person should answer
"FORGET IT--we must stop here! " Let's go learn some
practical stuff.

But there is room for a GENERAL discussion
--provided we do not violate 'ribbi reshayoth' (dividing G-D) as explained above.

In my estimation, the answer to whether the Sefiroth
were created (or not) is the critical issue in determining the nature of the Ten
Sefiroth. On the one hand, they may just represent vague,
intellectual (pre-creation) concepts that relate to HaShem. This approach may
be okay in terms of avoiding idol worship. HOWEVER, the minute
we say this, we encounter the danger of assigning usefulness to them as tools OR
(on the other hand) we emanate spiritual 'forces' as separate from HaShem--clearly
committing avodah zorah--a multiplicity of reigns (ribba reshayoth). As
long as we can keep them vague enough without assigning them utility, this may
work. But again... intellectual satisfaction comes into play. And does this
approach really hold up to scrutiny?

However, viewing them as creations avoids the
utility possibility
(entirely). This may be the optimal choice. However, the created sefiroth approach has its own problems as
well--as mentioned above and below. The person who is gung ho about
leaving the Ten Sefiroth in the pre-creation world has no choice but to stop at
this point--and chalk their nature up to an unknowable mystery (characteristics
or descriptions) without mentioning
them --or risk causing a division of G-D--a violation of Ribbi Reshayoth (a
multiplicity of reigns).

GOING TO THE EDGE:

I think the possibility that the ten sefiroth (characteristics or descriptions)
were "prior to creation" and simultaneously not a division of HaShem
is also a possibility. Although it is impossible and dangerous (for finite
creatures like us) to attempt an explanation. So I wont !

Returning back to the 'created sefiroth' approach, the
RMb"M zs"l and rav Sa'id (the Saadia Jaon zs"l) also appear
to support it. Although there are
important differences to each of their approaches as well. Although it should be noted
that one has to compare the Shehhina to the Sefiroth in order to make this
conclusion--the concepts are enlightening.

For the moment, let's take a look at the
"created" Sefiroth concept as espoused by the Saadia Jaon and the RMb"M (may
they be remembered for a blessing).

The following piece (below in navy blue) appears
on a Jay Michaelson's website examining the Saadiah Gaon's response to these questions. Although
I appreciate this website's contribution to the conversation at hand, I think
the article does a disservice to its own approach by prematurely accusing the
Saadia (and RMb"M by extension) of a non-Talmudic approach. While the Saadia's
(and later the RMb"M's) apparently NEW approach does beg for a source, I choose
to turn it around with the following question. Does the Talmud unequivocally
state that the Shechinah is NOT created? More likely, this is a case of
"absent evidence" for either view--which clearly leaves dogmatic room
for opinions such as these. Although I am sure that some may disagree with
me--I remain unimpressed by the verses they bring. And indeed, the RMb"M defends the Saadia's view
(of a "created Divine Presence/ Kavode") as
dogmatically acceptable--although as a second choice to his preferred
compromise. ALSO, all of the participants in this discussion may be doing this
study a disservice by referring to the Shekhina (Diving Presence) and the Kavode
(his Glory) as synonymous. Perhaps this is the key to understanding this whole
debate? Are they really the same exact thing? Although I choose to believe the RMb"M's first choice (which leaves
the description a bit more vague) --
as opposed to the Saadia's more risqué concept, here is the clip. My comments
appear in red.:

"While the
references to the Shechinah in Talmudic sources are somewhat diffuse, nowhere
(with the one exception below) does it appear as (1) an entity distinct from
G-D,
and nowhere is there any reference to it (2) being a created object. [Again,
this topic may not have been the focus for the Tanaaim. Because in those days,
no one was considering any attempt to EMANATE a bridge between the finite and the
infinite. Thus, absence of evidence (IN THIS CASE) does
not make for evidence of absence--as LOGIC takes over. Also, there IS evidence that this
critique may not have considered from mainstream Mikra sources - refer to Pg 121 in the Rosenblatt edition
of "The Book of Beliefs and Opinions" by Saadia-Treatise II, chapter X, towards the end]
. The former
idea without the latter would seem to violate the concept of the unity and
non-corporeality of G-D (a price paid by many Kabbalists, who accept it in the
guise of an 'emanated kavod', later, the Sefirot). To accept the latter without
the former makes no sense, and yet to accept neither is to admit that G-D can be
known via revelation. Saadia's decision, to argue both, buys complete
noncorporeality--a rationalist requirement--at the price of the theological
preference for total veracity of the Written and Oral Torah. [I
don't see how this goes against Talmudic sources. In fact, the Talmud clearly
demonstrates that whatever we regard as perfection, is attributed to G-D,
expressing that He is perfect in every way, and that no imperfection or
deficiency is found in him whatsoever (Moreh Nevukhim). For sure, if someone was
to claim that G-D decided to become finite --even for a short while, he would be
breaking this dictum, and He would cease to be called G-D by this very
definition]The position has
its consequences (discussed below) but whatever they are, its origins are not in
the Talmud. [In my humble opinion, the
thoroughness of the writer's Talmudic review is in question.]

If the idea of the created kavod is not in Talmudic
sources, where does it come from ?[IF? Than how is
it that throughout the Talmud, HaShem has to CAUSE his Presence to dwell in
certain places: "But when the Holy One decided to CAUSE His Presence to dwell
there and to make it His sanctuary, He said: 'It is not fitting for a king to
dwell in a valley, but only on a high and lofty mountain, resplendent in beauty
and visible to all. So He beckoned the valley's environs to come together and
provide a suitable place for the Presence." In anticipation of critics who will
find verses that say the Presence never did descend or arise, I would again say
the following. The concept of dwelling is -as the Sadia Gaon said-- a concept of
revealing a created aspect that men could behold. There is no other choice
here. Surely we can not say that HaShem's PRESENCE does not already dwell everywhere or
that there are STRONGER or WEAKER levels of HaShem. In fact, there is a verse in Megillah that says there is NO PLACE where His Presence does not dwell. So here
is the resolution. This moving around of the Presence must be a reference of
HaShem creating something for our Tsaddiqim to behold, as man can not possibly
see G-D and live. Also, the HaShem can not possibly limit itself and
still be called infinite. For those who would quote verses saying that the
Presence / Shekina (dwelling presence) is the Infinite (although it might in different places depending on
usage and content), I would again ask them to explain how the infinite can dwell
in one finite place. By its very definition, this is an absolute illogical
impossibility. And the response (I've heard) that G-D is above logic --is an
escape from logic. Rather, it must mean that HaShem allowed us to view something
that was representative of his Essence-- that He CREATED for men. This actually
fits and fulfills the Talmudic concept of speaking to men in the language of
men. Thus, the term
PRESENCE is used loosely depending on the context. By the way, there may be a clear difference
between the Kavode and Presence, and we are all off the mark... and this is
really about the word Kavode. Either way... this discussion is still relevant in
examining these concepts.

Urbach dates the "change of
conception" regarding the Shechinah, to "the philosophical exegesis of
R. Saadia Gaon," i.e. the application of Saadia's rational deduction to a
scriptural problem. Again, the use of the word
CHANGE here is loaded with agenda in my opinion. It lines up the argument that
all of Medieval mysticism was one big response to rationalism (which they
consider to be the new development). This takes the spot light off the fact that
the Zohar doctrines were (in most cases) the actual (Greek oriented) innovations, and that logic
was already a built-in component of our faith from the start.

(Uhrbach 64) More definitively, Joseph Dan has stated that
the concept of the shechinah (again, there could be
a blurring Kavod and Shechinah) being created is "absolutely an
innovation" of Saadia's, and he does not know of any previous texts which
refer to it, with only one exception. (Dan *) This exception, noted by both
Gershom Scholem and by Urbach, is exactly one midrash--again, amid about forty
cited in the Urbach work--which interprets Proverbs 22:29 ("Seest thou a
man diligent in his business?") in part as follows:

When the Sanhedrin wished to count him [king Solomon] with the
three kings and four commoners, the Shechinah stood before the Holy
One, Blessed be He, and said unto Him: "Sovereign of the universe!
Seest thou a man diligent?--They wish to count him with mean men."
(Midrash Proverbs, XXX, cited in Uhrbach 63)

Scholem [an admittedly controversial and yet useful source]sees here the beginning of a new conception of the Shechinah, yet at the
same time stresses that the Hechalot literature that follows does not continue
to develop it. (Scholem 59) Nor does Dan find any evidence for the continuity of
the idea. Still, although Saadia does not mention this source, it is possible to
conjecture that he may have read it. For our purposes, however, this possibility
is less pertinent than the comment by one of Saadia's critics, R. Moses b. R.
Hasdai, on the matter. R. Moses blames a misinterpretation of the above midrash
(of course, giving his own correct one) for Saadia's and others' misconceptions
about the Shechinah being a created form and charges that the source is
insignificant: "We need pay no heed to the reading in Midrash Proverbs, for
our Talmud takes precedence." (Ktav Tamim, Oshar Nechmad III, cited in
Uhrbach 63). Here, the author
again implies that our Talmud states something to the contrary. Above, I showed
this was not true.

This observation is in fact what I believe to be most
relevant in Saadia's redefinition of the kavod: that he goes against the
apparent Talmudic opinion. Dan suggested, in fact, that--given the proto-Qabalistic
agreement with the Talmudic sages on the point--the only group from whom Saadia
might have learned of the idea of a created kavod would be the Karaites, although
even from them we have no texts supporting such an idea.
This is absurd. Almost everything that Saadia wrote
was written against the Ananite /Karaites. You will not find a person, in the history of
Judaism, who disagreed more with their doctrines. If anything, the Karaites were
the first Jews to speak of concepts like Reincarnation. In fact, it is the
RambaN who claims "reincarnation" as a Jewish belief, when in fact it first
appeared in Judaism in the Ananite / Karaite world. So we must take what the RambaN is
saying here with deep suspicion. In reality, it is the Zohar-Qabalists who took from the Karaites, as
the Saadia argued vigorously against the
fraudulent and pagan concept of Reincarnation. This author would have us believe that the Saadia
borrowed a concept (that defines the very nature of G-D) from his greatest
antithesis. This is just preposterous revisionism. A direct
borrowing such as this would of course be shocking in Saadia's case, but even a
divergence in principle from strict adherence to Talmudic authority is
surprising. If Saadia diverges from the near-unanimity of Talmudic opinion (again,
this has not been proven in this article), what
is to stop the Karaites from doing so? One Karaite, R. Solomon b. Yeruhim,
called Saadia on this point, using rationalist arguments to attack Rabbanism.
(Here I am indebted to Joseph Dan's as-yet-unpublished examination of the
original texts.) Using the extravagantly-anthropomorphic (at least on the
surface) Shiur Komah, attributed to Rabbis Akiva and Ishmael, R. Solomon
ridiculed those who stake their beliefs in such blatant anthropomorphists.
Saadia's response, which we have in the writings of a late follower, R. Yehuda
ben Barzilai, is to declare the book to be pseudepigraphic invention--a
dangerous reply, given that it opens a wide body of Talmudic literature up to
the same charge from the Karaites. Hedging his bets, Saadia states that if R.
Akiva and R. Ishmael did actually write the Shiur Komah, then it is surely about
the kavod. This author obviously has
an agenda.

Apparently, then, Saadia believed himself to be
following the Talmudic opinion on the Shechinah--of course, given his thesis
that the Torah and reason are non-contradictory, this would not be
surprising--despite the evidence to the contrary.
[Site Admin comment: Evidence to the contrary?] . Needless to say, this is not
the opinion of Saadia's many detractors, who point out that the consequences of
accepting a created-kavod view are more troubling than the reasons to do so.
Most obvious of these consqequences is that the kavod is itself (and Saadia
claims that it makes sense to speak of the kavod 'itself') prayed to in Jewish
tradition.[Site Admin comment: The Kavode is not prayed to... the portion in the Qedusha
(the Sanctification)
is actually a statement- even though it is said in the middle of a prayer-the Amidahhh.
At the least, there shouldn't be any praying to the creations or Kavode here. His so called detractors may be been speaking about what
people were doing at that time. But the interdependence of a created Kavode -Nivra
and the necessity of praying to it is a huge leap of illogic, with all due
respect. If anything, the Zoharists were guilty of this, and thus caused a
backlash who say praying to the sefiroth as unorthodox. One such response is
translated in J. David Bleich, With Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish
Belief (New York, Ktav, 1983). Also see the responsum Noda Bibuda on saying "Le-shem
Yihud" in the prayers (Yoreh Deah 93); and "The Polemic on the Recital of
Le-Shem Yihud" in Jacobs, p. 140]. Although the verse's grammatical ambiguity has been the source of
wide-ranging interpretations, most often from adherents of the created-kavod
idea, Ezekiel 3:12--[HEBREW TEXT OMITTED] (perhaps, Blessed is the kavod of G-D from its/His place)--is the first such example. Reacting to Maimonides'
exposition of the notion of the created kavod (discussed below), Nachmanides (RambaN)
provides the most cogent objection:

If one should say that it is a created glory, in accordance with
the view of the Master [Maimonides] in regard to the verse "and the
glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" and others, how can we
apply thereto 'baruch' [blessed is] and ha-mevorach [the blessed]?
Moreover, one who prays to a created glory is, as it were, an
idolater.
(Nachmanides, Perush ha Torah, on Genesis 46:1)

I think it would help if the author would
actually state the RMb"M's words. Here they are:

"In this sense (metaphorically), this term (ie:
Shaken/ to dwell) is employed in reference to G-D, that is to say, to denote the
continuance of His Divine Presence (Shechinah) or of His Providence in some
place where the Divine Presence manifested itself constantly, or in some object
which was constantly protected by Providence. Comp. "And the Glory of the Lord
Abode" (Exod xxiv.:16); "And I will dwell among the children of Israel" (Exod
xxix: 45); "And for the goodwill of him that dwelt in the bush" (Deut.
xxxiii:16). Whenever the term is applied to the Almighty, it must be taken
consistently with the context in the sense either as referring to the Presence
of His Shechinah (ie: of his light that was created for the purpose of men to
behold) in a
certain place, or of the continuance of his Providence protecting a certain
object. " (Guide for the Perplexed, Chp 25)

Similarly the Qabbalist R. Judah
Hasid remarks in a commentary on the `alenu prayer that "if, as R. Saadia
contends, that He is a created Glory, we would not be able to proclaim about a
created Glory, that it is our G-D." (cited in Dan, Iyyunim, 82) Although
r. Saadia devotes many pages to prayer in Treatise V of Beliefs, primarily on why
it may or may not be answered, he does not address this concern. (Maimonides
does, below.) He of course condemns "worship of someone else than G-D,"
in accord with the second of the ten commandments, but does not give the words
of prayer the same rigorous interpretation as he did the words of scripture.
(Beliefs 219) Nor does r. Saadia address the vaguely-Gnostic problem of an
intermediary between G-D and the world (cf. Philo and the
logos
). To him the kavod is a messenger/angel (the same word, of course, in the
Hebrew) like any other. I do not mean to suggest that r. Saadia is ignorant of the
consequences of his own innovation--let us recall that he only resorted to it to
support "the axle of the book". (Beliefs 93) Rather, I see r. Saadia's
deliberate choice of maintaining a rigorous philosophical conception of the
Divine, at the expense of the traditional, revelation-based acceptance of It,
reveals something of the nature of his program and priorities in The Book of
Beliefs and Opinions. [Okay...
I think that here the author went overboard. He assumes that a revelation-based
concept of the Kavode is the universally accepted concept that has been handed
down -- when in fact -- it is nothing more then a Trinitarian remake by the New
Qabalistic schools of medieval times in their weak attempt to bridge the gap
between something from nothing (or between the finite to the infinite--usually
with overlapping worlds leading into emanated Godheads). I feel safer following the
r. Saadiah's logic
(which I am sure is found in Torah) of a
Created Glory--then to assume the author's unsupported premise that this was the
traditional way of understanding things. And how (see below) he has the guts to
state that r. Saadia's explanation as potentially Trinitarian boggles my mind-as
it was exactly the opposite. R. Saadia was keenly aware of the dangers of this whole topic in terms of
dividing G-D. Obviously, the first two of the ten commandments was his primary
concern here. The new Qabalists are oblivious to it. But I guess this makes
sense coming from the RambaN, who claims that reincarnation was actually an
ancient Jewish belief when it first appeared on the Jewish scene as an Aninite
(proto-Kairite)
Belief.]

R. Saadia goes to great lengths to
make his theological point clear, and denies even incidental holiness of the
kavod. He goes out of his way to state, in a refutation of trinitarianism, that
the kavod in no way becomes holy: Christians are "compelled to assume that
a physical being could become G-D through the association with it of a divine
element. They cite as an analogy the descent of the glory of G-D on Mount Sinai
and its appearance in the Burning Bush and the Tent of Meeting. Such a
comparison would, however, compel them to acknowledge the Tabernacle and the
Bush and the mountain also as deities, which would be going from bad to worse so
far as they are concerned." (Beliefs 110) Although the phrasing of this
passage is potentially misleading, R. Saadia is here implying that the kavod-as-object
is no more divine by virtue of its association with G-D than are the mountain,
bush, and tabernacle in which it resides. Of course, once r. Saadia claims that the
kavod is created, such terms as 'resides' are no longer problematic, and r. Saadia
allows that the kavod takes several specific, physical shapes, sometimes also
appearing as light. (Beliefs 121 and 177)

R. Saadia's innovation is by no
means a minor one, and influences entire schools of both rationalistic and Qabalistic
Jewish thought. As has been previously indicated, Maimonides adopts
the idea, first giving the reader of the Guide to the Perplexed the choice of an
interpretation of the term kavod ("The whole earth is full of His glory;
the meaning of this verse being that the whole earth bears witness to his
perfection") or r. Saadia's sense: "However, if you wish to consider that
the 'glory of the Lord' is a created light that is designated 'glory' in every
passage and that 'filled the tabernacle', there is no harm in it." (Maimonides
46, I:19). In typical fashion, Maimonides becomes more direct as the work
progresses. The term 'shahhon,' to dwell, "is used in the sense of the
permanence of his Indwelling--I mean his
created
light--in a place." (Maimonides 55, I:25, emphasis added) And again, soon
after: Onkelos in Exodus 20 "referred the 'throne' to 'His glory', I mean
to the Indwelling [shehhinah], which is a created light." (Maimonides 60,
I:28) It is interesting also to note that Maimonides follows both Onkelos'
rereading of the Torah and r. Saadia's rereading of the concept of the shehhinah
(once more, lowercase his).

In chapter I:64 of the Guide,
however, Maimonides characteristically confuses the issue, in an attempt to
escape from the problem of praying to something created, anticipating
Nahhmanides criticism, by declaring 'Glory' to be an equivocal term.

The 'glory of G-D' is sometimes intended to signify the created
light that G-D causes to descend in a particular place in order to
confer honor upon it in a miraculous way...

However,

The expression is sometimes intended to signify
His essence and true reality... as when he [Moses] says 'Show me,
I pray, Your Glory,' and was answered 'For man shall not see Me and
live.' The answer indicates that the 'glory' spoken of here is His
essence...
'Glory' is sometimes intended to signify the honoring of Him, may
He be exalted, by all men... [even] those beings that have no
apprehension, as for instance the minerals, also as it were honor
G-D through the fact that by their very nature they are indicative
of the power and wisdom of Him who brought them into existence...
It is in this view of the notion being named 'glory' that it is
said "The whole earth is full of His glory", this being equivalent
to the dictum, "And the earth is full of His praise," [Habbakuk
3:3] for praise is called 'glory.'
(Maimonides 157)

While I think this lengthy
tripartite interpretation of the term Kavod serves mainly as an excellent
example of the difference between Maimonides' method and r. Saadia, it also makes
clear the degree to which r. Saadia's notion was incorporated into rationalist
thought and to which that stream of thought wrestled with it. While not all
philosophers after r. Saadia agree with his interpretation of the kavod (a notable
dissenter is Bahya ibn Pakuda, who writes in
Hovot haLevavot
that "it is impossible for us to conceive of him from the perspective of the
essence of His Glory, may He be blessed."), Maimonides' project indicates
that he at least felt it to be a necessary solution to a philosophical problem
that had severe consequences for traditional religious theory and practice. [Perhaps
this author should have been more properly concerned with the Zoharist-Qabalistic (idolatrous) violation of ribi reshayoth (a multiplicity of 'G-DLY' reigns) that
is apparent in popular revelation-based "descending emanated level" theories
--which are surely as big of a problem -- if not bigger then whether this is
a prayer to a created being. Whether it was considered "praying"
also remains to be seen from the "evidence" above in my assessment.]

R. Saadia's interpretation of the
kavod had an even greater influence on the development of Qabalah. [Certainly, this was not his
intention]. As has been
convincingly argued in Dan, Torat Ha Sod, r. Saadia's kavod becomes the root of the
Bahir's postulation of three such entities, which in turn multiply into keter
(the highest sefirah, the ineffable link between the 'ein sof' and the sefirotic
tree), the intermediate sefirot, and the Shehhinah-as-tenth-sefirah. Scholem in
Major Trends casts the history as follows:

The glory of G-D, the Kavod, i.e. that aspect of G-D which He
reveals to Man, is to the Hasidim [of medieval Germany] not the
Creator but the First creation. The idea is derived from Saadia
whose doctrine of divine glory was intended to serve as an
explanation of the Biblical anthropomorphisms and the appearance of
G-D in the vision of the prophets....
The importance of this conception for the religious thought of
[medieval] Hasidism is considerable.... The assertion that the
light of glory was created is, of course [!], a novelty introduced
by Saadia of which the ancient Merkabah conception of Kavod knows
nothing.
(Scholem 111-112)

[Hello... The Saadia never said anything about describing how G-D descended by levels to turn into divided sefiroth
(which is complete idolatry. If anything, used out the Saadia's created Kavode to support something that Saadia was
trying to avoid in the first place--idol worship. I am not convinced of any of the above conjecture.]

Note that German Hasid R. Judah
ha Hasid, in his "Book of the Glory" already distinguishes between an
"inner glory" (kavod penimi) with no form but a voice, and a
"visible glory" (kavod hahhitzon) whose forms change with the will of
G-D,
whose form convinces prophets that the voices they are hearing are not spurious.
(cited in Scholem, 113) Scholem adds "The vision of the Kavod is expressly
defined as the aim and the reward of Hasidic askesis." (Ibid.) So too does
R. Nathan of Rome write in the year 1100 of "a Glory, which is above the
Glory." (Cited in Verman, 22) Many interpret Proverbs 25:2--"It is the
glory of G-D to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a
matter"--as suggesting that the kavod either hides the true essence of G-D,
or is that which is hidden; in either case, it is the kavod of Man to discover
it.

The disjuncture between Saadia's
kavod and the idea of the "Glory which is hidden from sight" (the 12th
century Sefer Ha Iyyun, or Book of Contemplation, Verman trans., 38) form
interesting rifts, outside the bounds of this paper, between those Kabbalists--primarily
in Germany--who accept the created-ness of the Kavod, and those--primarily in
Spain and Provence--who did not. Both views, in fact, are expressed in the Bahir,
which uncharacteristically presents two conflicting parables regarding Ezekiel's
"[HEBREW TEXT OMITTED]":one in which the kavod is the daughter of a
far-off and invisible king, the other in which she is the invisible wife (i.e.
noncontingent) of the king. In any case,Dan argues (this time contra-Scholem,
although, as we have seen, not entirely) that it is in fact Saadia's doctrine of
the Kavod, and not the influence of gnosticism, which sets off the chain of Qabalistic
'pleroma' in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. [What an irony that the very person
who would have been in the forefront against this kind of association should be
labeled as the very father of it. What a stretch. Poor Saadiah. The author makes
it sound like Saadiah would have been proud. Oh boy. How does he get from A to B
here?] Whatever the
merits of this argument, and I think they are strong, the many positive and
negative references Kabbalists make to Saadia's kavod themselves make a fairly
strong case.

As revolutionary as Saadia's
doctrine of the created kavod is [what a
dramatitization--in my estimation]
, the lasting effect it had on Jewish thought
would seem to indicate its usefulness in addressing the problem of the Divine
acting in or penetrating the world, which can be seen as one of the fundamental
contradictions between 'the Jewish G-D' and 'the Aristotelian GoD.' What I hope
to have shown is that Saadia is not merely using Aristotelian methods [as if the
Greeks had a monopoly on logic. See Moreh Nevukhim for RMb"M's insistance on
learning at least three sciences --including Logic -- before touching the study
of Maaseh Merqavah - metaphysics]
to prove
traditional ideas about the former, but that he takes seriously the task of
proving that the two gods are the same. Because Saadia believes in the
Aristotelian God, as defined in the introduction to Treatise II, he cannot
accept the revelation of that G-D Himself, which is a basic claim of the Exodus
from Egypt and revelation at Sinai, as traditionally understood [Ribi reshayoth was never our
tradition, although it was a Greek one]. To make his
rationalist program work, Saadia thus departs from this traditional
understanding, radically reinterprets Biblical accounts of revelation, and
introduces a new concept that was to take on tremendous significance in
subsequent Jewish thought. While I believe that categorizing Jewish thinkers
according to which method and tradition of thought they seem to prefer is to a
priori deny the possibility of their projects, it would certainly seem that
Saadia is being a rigorous philosopher in his interpretive endeavour. Rather
than claiming that Saadia's Opinions about the rationality of Jewish Beliefs as
bely a less-than-thorough philosophical worldview, I hope to have shown that the
exposition of at least one of those opinions shows that Saadia takes his
syncretism seriously, and, when reason demands it, changing not only the
tradition received from revelation but the nature of that revelation itself, in
order to make his integrative philosophical project legitimately work.
The
author does absolutely nothing to prove this baseless assertion.

Works Cited

Dan, Joseph, Iyyunim be-Sifrut
Hasidei Ashkenaz (Ramat Gan: 1975)

Dan, Joseph, Torat Ha-Sod, (Academon:
1977)

Dan * -- refers to conversations
held with Professor Joseph Dan by the writer.

Fackenheim, Emil, To Mend the
World (New York: Schocken, 1982)

Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of
the Perplexed (Shlomo Pines trans., Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963)

Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi zs'l (Author of The
Kuzari - 1140 CE):
"The Book of creation describes that G-D ‘CREATED’ the universe with
the three s-f-r’s—s’far (calculation), sipur (instruction), and sefer
(writing)—and that all three are one vis-à-vis G-D. This conglomeration gave
rise to the ‘thirty-two mysterious pathways of wisdom,’ which are ‘the ten
sephiroth plus the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. These are illusions to
how all things came into existence and how they are bounded both quantitatively
and qualitatively."

“Let us not pay any heed to the (Greek) philosophers, who
make hierarchical distinctions within the Divine realm. For us, everything in
that realm is simply of the Divine level, by virtue that it is completely
separated from the physical. Thus, only G-D conducts the physical realm.”

R. Y. Qafahh zs’l: “our Sages of blessed memory refused
to attribute to G-D any need of his creations or of their help. Nor did they
attribute to the angels, His messengers, any act of creation, for all existence
refers itself back to G-D alone.”

“It is essential to conclude that the
world has a beginning to which no other beginning precedes, and a first to which
there is no first. It is He who formed it all and brought it into existence from
nothing—not from something or upon something. As it states ‘I am G-D who
maketh all, who spreadeth the heavens by Myself and extendeth the land’ etc.
Job said ‘He stretcheth the north upon Tohu and maketh the earth to hang upon
nothing (bli mah). He is Kadmon, the first and there is no beginning to His
beginning, nor is there an end to His Eternal Beginning, as it states ‘I am
the first and I am the last’—‘Therefore the Men of the Great Assembly
established in the tefillot: In truth, Thou art the first and Thou art the
last’. “

RMb"M zs’l -- 1160 CE: “The essential commandment concerning idol
worship is not to serve any of the creations, neither angels, celestial spheres
and stars nor any one of the four elements and whatever has been created from
them. Even if the one who serves them knows that HaShem is G-D and yet he serves
this creation in the manner of the generation of Enosh, he is one who practices
idol worship " (hilhhoth – avodah zara, perek 1 &2)

RMb"M zs’l: "There is no oneness
at all except in believing that there is one simple essense in which there is no
complexity or multiplicity of notions, but one notion only; so that from
what-ever angle you regard it and from whatever point of view you consider it,
you will find that it is one, not divided in any way and by any cause into two
notions" (MN 1:51)

RMb"M zs’l: "If
you have understanding you will comprehend that which our sages pointed out.
They have clearly stated that the Divine Chariot (the mysteries of Torah)
includes matters too deep and too profound for the ordinary intellect. It has
been shown that a person favored by providence with reasons to understand these
mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except viva voce, and on
condition that the pupil possess certain qualifications, and even then only the
heads of the sections may be communicated. This has been the cause why the
knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared from our nation and nothing
has remained of it." (Rabenu Moshe - Mosheh ben Maimon - Moreh Nevuhhim
- 1160 CE).

RMb"M zs’l:
“If
you wish to go in search of truth, to cast aside your passions, your tradition,
and your fondness of things you have been accustomed to cherish, if you wish to
guard yourself against error; then consider consider the fate of these
speculators and the result of their labors: observe how they rushed, as it were,
from the ashes into the fire. They denied the nature of the existing things,
misrepresented the properties of heaven and earth, and thought that they were
able, by their propositions, to prove the creation of the world, but in fact
they were far from proving creation ex nihilo, and have weakened the arguments
for the existence, the unity, and the incorporeality of God. The proofs of all these doctrines must be based
on the permanent nature of the existing things, as perceived by the senses and
the intellect.”
(MN I:76)

Milhamoth HaShem:
"His
Oneness: that is to know that the Cause of all is One - not as the one of a
general species, such as ‘mankind’ which includes many persons; and not as
the one of a specific kind, such as ‘one man’ - for you include with him 248
limbs; not as the one which is combined and can be divided into many ones; and
not as a simple ‘body’ (entity) which is one in number yet may receive an
infinite number of divisions. For each ‘one’ of these is called ‘one’ in
a transitional sense only, because those things which have been ‘gathered
together’ under one name are equal in one aspect but it is not one in the true
sense. The true One, in fact, is uniquely the Oneness of the Creator, Blessed is
He, of which there is no like in any way. This is the word of G-Das it states
‘Hear o Israel, the Lord, our God, G-D is One’ -

MORE RMb"M
REFERENCES:

One
does not expound upon forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three, nor
upon Ma’aseh Bereshith in the presence of two, nor upon the merkavah in the
presence of one, unless that one were wise and understood upon his own. All who
look upon four things, it was better had they not come into the world: what is
above, what is below what is in front, and what is behind. All who are not
protective of the honor of their master, it were better had they not come into
the world.

He
said that is forbidden to expound upon the “secrets of forbidden sexual
relations” unless those listening be fewer than three, the reason for this
being that were one of them to engage the teacher in discussion, the other two
could engage in discussion between themselves, lost their concentration on what
the teacher taught and thus not know the correct law concerning the secrets of
forbidden sexual relations. Given the great desire most humans have for this
matter, they will not be sufficiently rigorous if a doubt should arise
concerning what they heard from the teacher and they will decide the matter
leniently.

He
said, “nor upon ma’asseh bereshit in the presence of two and certainly not
if they be more. They said: “for ask now of the days past [which were before
the, since the day that G-D created man upon the earth and from one end of
heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great
thing is, or hath been heard like it (Deut 4:32)—one asks, two do not ask. We
have already explained the reason for this in our introduction to this
composition. IT is that it is impossible for the masses to understand those
matters, and they are therefore only transmitted from one individual to another
with great care, for the masses understand very little of them. When a fool
hears them, his conviction becomes undermined and he thinks that they contradict
the truth, they are [themselves) the truth.

But
one does not expound upon ma’aseh merkavah at all, even to one individual
unless he is, as it was said, wise and understood upon his own –that he
arouses himself to understand these matters on his own and does not need to have
them explained to him. Rather he is given a hint, and he draws proper inferences
on his own. This is the meaning of their statement, “they teach him chapter
headings” [Hagigah 13a], by which they mean that these matters include issues
which are impressed upon the souls of perfected human beings, such that when
they are explained in language or expressed in parables they lose their meaning
and significance.

Listen
to what has become clear to me according to my understanding on the basis of
which I have studied in the words of the Sages: it is that they call ma’aseh
bereshit the natural science and inquiry into the beginning of creation. By
ma’aseh merkavah they mean the divine science, it being speech on the
generality of existence and on the existence of the Creator, His knowledge, His
attributes, that all created things must necessarily have come from Him, the
angels, the soul, the intellect which links with humans and existence after
death. Because of the importance of these two sciences, the natural and the
divine—they were justly considered important—they warned against teaching
them as the mathematical sciences are taught. It is known that each person by
nature desires all the sciences, whether he be an ignoramus or a sage. It is
further known that is is impossible for a person to begin the study of these
sciences and direct his thought towards them, without the appropriate premises
and without entering the stages of science, they there ore forbade this and
warned against it. They sought to frighten one who directed his thought towards
“the account of the beginning”without
appropriate premises as he said “all who look upon four things…” They also
sought to restrain one who would direct his thought towards and would examine
divine matters with his unaided imagination without ascending the rungs of the
sciences and said with reference to such people-- “all who are not protective
of the honor of their master [it were better had they not come into the
word”].

It
were better had they not come into the world—its meaning is that such a person
is removed from the ranks of humanity, and classifying him on one of the other
species of animal would be better for existence. Than his being a human because
he wants to know something in an inappropriate manner and in a way that is
unsuited to his nature, for only a person ignorant 9of the nature of existanec
would seek to imagine what is above or what is below. When a man empty of all
knowledge seeks to use his corrupt imagination in order to know what is above
the heavens and below the earth, and imagines reaching them to be like ascending
to the attic of a house and also to know what was before the creation of the
heavens and what will be after they are no longer, he will certainly be brought
to madness and desolation.

Examine
this wonderful expression said with diving help, “all who are not proctective
of the honor of their master,” the meaning of this being, all who are not
protective of their intellects, for the intellect is the honor of G-D (kevod
haSHem). Since he does not know the value of this matter which was given him, he
is abandoned into the hands of his desires, and becomes like an animal. Thus
they said “who is he who is not protective of the honor of his master?—he
who transgresses secretly” (Hagigah 16a; Kiddushin 40a). They said elsewhere,
“adulterers do not commit adultery until the spirit of madness enters them (Midrash
Tanhuma, Naso 5).”This is the
truth, for while one craves any of the desires, the intellect is not perfected.

This
matter is brought up here since above he said “these are the bodies of
Torah,” and thus here he cited matters which are the principles of the
“bodies of Torah.” The Talmud forbade teaching them publicly and expressly
prohibited it and commanded that an individual teach them to himself and not
pass the on to another and derived this prohibition from the parabolic statement
of Solomon on this matter , “honey and milk are under they tongue.”

Maaseh
Bereshith= physics/ Maaseh
Merkavah = metaphysics

Sefer Yesirah: Chapter Three: Ten Sefirot out
of nothing. Stop your mouth from speaking, stop your heart from thinking, and if
your heart runs (to think) return to a place of which it is said "they ran
and returned"; and concerning this thing the covenant was made; and they
are ten in extent beyond limit. Their end is infused with their beginning, and
their beginning with their end like a flame attached to a glowing ember. Know,
think [reflect, meditate] and imagine that the Creator is One and there is
nothing apart from Him, and before One what do you count?

Camilla
Site references: (although I do not subscribe to many of the views on
this site): The
original textual usage of the expression ‘Ten Spherot’ may be assumed to be
Sefer ha-Yetzirah with the expression ‘esser sfirot bli ma’ Ten Spherot
without substance; and blima is written together so as to include the
interpretation ‘blom picha mi-ledaber’ seal your mouth from speaking of it.
That which is without substance cannot be spoken of or expressed in words except
negatively to say that the matter is without a substance about which one can or
may speak and because it is so it therefore becomes an obligation to seal your
mouth from speaking because speech will represent substance and thus your words
will only falsify the true contents relating them as a substance.

It
was the non-compliance concerning said interdiction that allowed for the
collosal error to take place.Moses de Leon didn’t treat the Ten Spherot as if
they had no substance and he opened his pen to substantialise them. He
‘converted them into substance’ and to cover over the contradiction of their
not having substance, he ‘elevated’ them to the falsified-non-substance of
Emanation linguistics. ‘Atzilut’ ‘emanation’ was for him above all
substance because it was before creation and above creation. He had
‘elevated’ the level to the nihilo before the creatio. What substance could
you find in the ‘ain (nothing) before the ‘yesh’ (substance)? To
understand that the expression Ten Spherot of itself is representative of a
‘true hidden-matter’ but that the falsification of such a term brought about
the immense confusion is illuminating to all those who desire to comprehend why
all this has happened.

2
points -- The idolatrous-sin of the Zohar and after it of all the false Qabalah that issued in the 400 years before the Holocaust is itself called the ‘sin of
emanation’. The doctrine of ‘emanation’ is itself an idolatrous doctrine
which is against the true faith of the Holy Torah. The second point is that the
doctrine of Emanation is in direct opposition to the all-essential beginning of
the Torah ‘bereishit bara Elohim et ha-shamaim ve-et ha-aretz’ (In the
beginning G-D created the heavens and the earth). The Torah has been given us in
the linguistics of ‘creation’ with the obligation to remain within that
boundary. The emanation-linguistics of the Zohar distroys the ‘beit’ of
bereishit.

The
fact of the mentioning of the Ten Spherot in that book called Sefer Yetzirah,
falsely attributed to Abraham, our father, can be properly simplified for our
purpose here. They are part of ‘secrets’ revealed to the true Hidden
Tzadikim. There is no permission to explore or study or interpret or write about
them etc. etc. They exist as many other true ‘secrets’ that exist. There
exist 7 heavens. Can you climb to enter them? Absolutely no, unless one is authorized
by his teacher who is one of the Hidden Tzadikim.

These are references to the (remnants
of our) true Qabalah --which we have received from Moses, our teacher and from Abraham, our
father, that the Oneness of G-D is unlike any other category of ‘one’ and
that His Oneness stands eternally and it will never change."

Site Admin.'s
personal commentsIt is my wish to see the Jewish people return to their original
faith. One need not be a purist to desire this. It has to do with intellectual
honesty and loyalty to the original beliefs of our fathers-- and to HaShem (G-D)
Himself... I have to believe that the long awaited return to the original faith
will happen... and that it will pave the way for the ultimate redemption with
the coming of the Messiah. Then brothers and sisters everywhere will peacefully
thirst for the understanding that HaShem alone reigns as ONE in the
universe.

"Al
Hahhmat HaQabalah and on the ancientness of the Zohar"- R. Shmuel David
Luzzatto is also a worthwhile read on this topic

Is Zohar
authentic? Conclusion...

Pretending it (or some of it) was...even r. Aryeh Kaplin says: "Since the
'Qabalah' is essentially based on
'Divine Inspiration', its decisions are not legally binding, and therefore such customs are no more obligatory
than any other proper custom. Hence, when Qabalistic customs are in conflict with laws based on the Talmudic authorities, the latter must be
followed" (Many Talmudic sources sited for this in the "Handbook of
Jewish Thought", r. Kaplin)

It has since become accepted knowledge that the legend (of
how the Zohar was discovered) was merely legend. Says Encyclopedia Judaica:
"The Zohar with its various strata was without doubt composed in the years
that immediately preceded its publication, since it is impossible to uncover any
section that was written before 1270" (1209). The actual author of this
work was the Spanish Qabalist Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon, and it is believed
that Simon Bar Yohai was simply a pen name taken by Leon in order to make a pretension
of antiquity.

Many of the Qabalistic
scholars (some from universities / or Encyclopedias)
totally ignore the r. Yihhyeh's
take on this subject. As if it didn't really merit a mention. I think people are
just down right racist (they despise Yemenite Jews?) not to mention it. No one denies the merkavah tradition
in Judaism that was mentioned by Morenu Moshe. The question revolves around what
that was/is. And one of only a handful of ravs with the guts and
intellectual tenacity to
vigorously argue against the Zohar
(as not being Merkavah or even basic Judaism) in
a specific, dogmatic, content-based fashion was rav Yihhyeh zs"l.
It should be mentioned that one of the heads of Italian Jewry ("Shadol")
also explored this territory. Anyone saying that these works have been disproved
since then is in outer space --with all due respect.

It astounds the
mind that Mori Yihhyeh's rigorous arguments are being totally left out of the history books.
Not to mention the fact that he pleaded with the Zoharists to reconsider before
publishing anything. He took the Zohar at face
value and then dogmatically argued from there (against it) based on the RMb"M--and
other commentators who wrote of the importance of maintaining the purity and
oneness of G-D.
He used Judaism to show that it is not Judaism. I think that deserves at least a
mention--as I will do below.

The establishment does not always care about accuracy, instead favoring the
status quo. This is common in all areas of study, but is prevalent in
those areas where controversy is highly probable. The Spanish-Portugese
reaction to the Zohar in the wake of the Sabbetaean heresy is glossed over as
well, although not to the same extent as the Rav Yihhyeh Qafah (and a large
portion of the Temani community in general). It may be easy for some to ignore the intellectual
prowess of Italian or Spanish-Portugese Jews and claim that their rejection of the
Zohar was "reactionary or naive" (which I totally reject). It is not easy, however, to provide any
counter to Rav Yihhyeh Kafah's specific dogmatic arguments, since they are too logically founded and
without external circumstances to pin the blame on. When the blame cannot
be shifted, a group will attempt to absolve itself of error by simply ignoring
the problem or blackballing its critics as heretics or kofers. Another thing we have to understand is that popular Qabalah (ie:
Zohar based mysticism)
equates to a money making enterprise. Why would people who pervert Yahaduth for money
wish to admit to the existence of something which would undermine all they have
to gain? This is a conflict of interest. Reform Jewry rejects the Divine nature of the Torah directly.
Conservative Jewry is leaning more to the left each day, and the majority of
Orthodoxy resists any change whatsoever. It would be nice if we could free ourselves from
fiction in order to return to a more pristine Yahaduth.

NOT FROM SITE ADMIN

RMb"M & QabalahIn 1201 (3 years before he passed away), the RMb"M was asked (by. R. Saadia
B. R. Berachot) his opinion of the work, Shiur Komah (a classic of Qabalah dealing in heavily anthropomorphic language with G-d's "limbs," so to
speak). The RMb"M replied: "I have never held the opinion that this is
from the [Talmudic] sages. [editor's note: In his youth, the RMb"M held that
this sefer was a a holy work with an allegorical-philosophical commentary, and
he mentioned it in his introduction to Cheilek, Seventh Foundation, p. 142; but
he never attributed it to the sages, apparently having an indication that it was
a late work. Later he erased this early mention from his manuscripts...] And
heaven forbid that it should come from them. Rather, it is a work from one of
the commentators of Edom [i.e., a Christian], and nothing else. In short, it is
a great mitzwah to wipe out this writing and destroy the memory of its
content--'and do not mention the name of other gods' etc. For a description of 'limbs' can only refer to other gods, without any doubt (Igrot HaRMb"M,
vol. II, p. 578).. Similar anthropomorphical descriptions are
present--abound--in the Zohar.

COMMENT: Some have noted that other places of the Tanakh have also mentioned
limbs. This point is well taken. But defining what limbs are is necessary.

So we see that in his youth the RMb"M thought
highly of a Qabalistic text, and it was in his old age that he had a totally
dismissive attitude toward it! Incidentally, in regard to the RMb"M and
mysticism, I recall seeing a quote from the writing of the RMb"M's son R
Avraham, in which--as nasi--he tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce a Sufi-type
practice into synagogue prayer. And also, the RMb"M's great-grandson (or
possibly grandson--I forget) wrote a work that in fact became a classic of of
Sufi literature, and has been translated into English as "The Treatise of
the Pool." (He remained a pious Jew--see the fascinating introduction to
the book.)

COMMENTS:

I'm very much aware of the RMb"M's Teshuva on Shiur Koma not to mention the
fact that Rabbi Qafahh wrote an article about this topic, revolving around a
manuscript from Yemen that dealt with this issue. The article originally
appeared in a book called "Yahadut Teiman" edited by Josef Tobi. This
article was later included in one of the volumes of Ketavim (probably volume 2).
It should be said though that the issues with Shiu'ur Koma are far more
egregious than the issues that the Zohar has.

Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRMb"M was a big proponent
of the custom of "Kiddush Yadayim VeRaglaim" washing of hands and feet
prior to prayer. He could not however convince the entire community to hop on
board and spread of this custom, thus did not succeed. If I remember correctly,
Rabbi Qafahh strongly attacks the academics who posited that this was a Moslem
custom that he was pushing and that he was a closet Sufi. It is indeed possible
that he was more mystical. Water was a major focus in his mysticsm
as in the metephor likening the Torah to Mayim. The son although an important
Rabbi, certainly did not live up to the reputation and greatness of his father.

The Grandson, Ovadia, named after the RMb"M's Grandfather or earliest ancestor
that the family could document (if my memory serves me correctly - See intro to
Peirush HaMishnah) did indeed write a mystical work. I am unfamiliar with this
work, but I believe that it was translated into English a number of years ago?

The Aramaic used in the Zohar, Scholem argues, is based on the Aramaic of
the Babylonian Talmud and, primarily, Targum Onkelos- texts which someone
writing at a later time would have in their library, but not exactly the same
Aramaic of Shimon bar Yochai's time. Furthermore, distinctive Arabic phrases
and jargon used popularly in philosophical works of the middle ages, are found
in the Aramaic of the Zohar, but are certainly not of Shimon bar Yochai's
time. The Aramaic is also very poor (sometimes just Hebrew words with alephs
tagged on at the end), with the Zohar's author very confused between certain
verb constructions- not something expected from the Tanna!

After researching the most ancient extant manuscripts of other works of
Moshe de Leon, traditionally the revealer of the Zohar, Scholem discovered the
very same nuances, the very same confusion between verb constructions. There
are also reports of the time in which de Leon's widow admits that her late
husband never had any ancient text and that he wrote the Zohar himself, in the
name of the Tanna, in order to make more money.

A pseudepigraphic work which pretends to be a revelation from God
communicated through R. Simeon ben Yoḥai to the latter's select disciples.
Under the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch, written partly in Aramaic
and partly in Hebrew, it contains a complete cabalistic theosophy, treating of
the nature of God, the cosmogony and cosmology of the universe, the soul, sin,
redemption, good, evil, etc. It first appeared in Spain in the thirteenth
century, being made known through the agency of the cabalistic writer Moses
ben Shem-Ṭob de Leon, who ascribed it to the miracle-working tanna Simeon ben
Yoḥai. The fact that it was launched by such an unreliable sponsor as Moses de
Leon, taken together with the circumstance that it refers to historical events
of the post-Talmudical period, caused the authenticity of the work to be
questioned from the outset. After the death of Moses de Leon, it is related, a
rich man of Avila, named Joseph, offered the widow, who had been left without
means, a large sum of money for the original from which her husband had made
the copy; and she then confessed that her husband himselfwas
the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she said, why he had
chosen to credit his own teachings to another, and he had always answered that
doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Simeon ben Yoḥai would be
a rich source of profit (see "Sefer ha-Yuḥasin," ed. Filipowski, p. 89).
Incredible as this story seems—for it is inconceivable that a woman should own
that her deceased husband had committed forgery for the sake of lucre—it at
least proves that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some
to have been written entirely by Moses de Leon. This seems to have been the
opinion of the cabalistic writer Joseph ibn Waḳar, and he cautioned the public
against the work, which he asserted to be full of errors.

The general opinion, however, was in favor of its authenticity, this
view being held not only by the cabalists, for whom the book opened new paths
in the field of mysticism, but also by eminent Talmudists. It was quoted by
Todros Abulafia, by Menahem Recanati, and even by Isaac of Acco, in whose name
the story of the confession of Moses de Leon's widow is related. Isaac
evidently ignored the woman's alleged confession in favor of the testimony of
Joseph ben Todros and of Jacob, a pupil of Moses de Leon, both of whom assured
him on oath that the work was not written by Moses ("Sefer ha-Yuḥasin,"
l.c.). The only objection worthy of consideration by the believers in the
authenticity of the Zohar was the lack of
references to the work in Jewish literature; and to this they answered that
Simeon ben Yoḥai did not commit his teachings to writing, but transmitted them
orally to his disciples, who in turn confided them to their disciples, and
these to their successors, until finally the doctrines were embodied in the
Zohar. As to the references in the book to historical events of the
post-Talmudic period, it was not deemed surprising that Simeon ben Yoḥai
should have foretold future happenings. The first attack upon the accepted
authorship of the Zohar was made by Elijah
Delmedigo. Without expressing any opinion as to the real author of the work,
he endeavored to show, in his "Beḥinat ha-Dat," that it could not be
attributed to Simeon ben Yoḥai. The objections advanced by him were as
follows: (1) were the Zohar the work of Simeon
ben Yoḥai, it would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case
with the Sifre and other works of the Talmudic period; (2) the
Zohar contains names of Talmudists who lived at a later period than
that of Simeon; (3) were Simeon ben Yoḥai the father of the Cabala, knowing by
divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his halakic decisions
would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done; (4) were
the Cabala a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion
among the cabalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts ("Beḥinat
ha-Dat," ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).

These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of
Modena in his "Ari Nohem" (pp. 49 et seq., Leipsic, 1840). A work
exclusively devoted to the criticism of the Zohar
was written, under the title "Miṭpaḥat Sefarim," by Jacob Emden, who, waging
war against the remaining adherents of the Shabbethai Ẓebi movement,
endeavored to show that the book on which the pseudo-Messiah based his
doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the
Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud;
contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical
authorities; mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans (ii. 32a); uses the
expression "esnoga" (iii. 232b), which is a Portuguese corruption of
"synagogue," and explains it in a cabalistic manner as a compound of the
Hebrew words and
; gives a mystical explanation of the
Hebrew vowel-points, which were introduced long after the Talmudic period (i.
24b, ii. 116a, iii. 65a).

These and other objections of Emden's, which were largely borrowed
from the French ecclesiastic Jean Morin ("Exercitationes Biblicæ," pp. 359
et seq., Paris, 1669), were refuted by Moses ben Menahem Kunitz, who, in a
work entitled "Ben Yoḥai" (Budapest, 1815), endeavors to show the following
characteristics: that the vowel-points were known in Talmudic times; that the
rites which Emden claimed to have been ordained by later rabbinical
authorities were already known to the Talmud; and that Simeon ben Yoḥai, who
before taking refuge in the cave was designated only by the name of Simeon, is
credited in the Talmud with many miracles and mystic sayings. Another work in
favor of the antiquity of the Zohar was published
by David Luria under the title "Ḳadmut ha-Zohar" (Königsberg, 1855 [?]). It is
divided into five chapters, in which the author gives proofs that Moses de
Leon did not compile the Zohar; that the Geonim
in Babylonia cite cabalistic doctrines from a certain "Midrash Yerushalmi,"
the language of which strongly resembles that of the
Zohar; that the work was compiled before the completion of the Talmud;
that a great part of it was written in the period of Simeon ben Yoḥai; and,
finally, that the Aramaic language was used in Talmudic times as well as in
the geonic period. Of these proofs only those showing the inadmissibility of
the authorship of Moses de Leon deserve consideration, the others being mere
quibbles; for even if it be conceded that the Talmud knew of the vowel-points
and that the Aramaic was commonly used, there is no evidence whatever that
Simeon ben Yoḥai or his immediate disciples were connected with the
Zohar. As to the identification of the Zohar
with the so-called "Midrash Yerushalmi," the single fact that most of the
passages quoted are not found in the Zohar, as
Luria himself admits, is a sufficient proof that the two works can not be
identical. However, Luria has quite as much warrant for asserting, on the
ground of his proofs, that a great part of the Zohar
was written by Simeon ben Yoḥai as have Jellinek, Grätz, Ginsburg, and many
others for maintaining that it was wholly composed by Moses de Leon on the
ground that in the works of the last-named there are passages which are found
verbatim in the Zohar. These scholars seem to
shrink from the idea that Moses de Leon should have been guilty of plagiarism,
but they are notafraid to charge him with forgery,
and that of so clumsy a nature as to arouse at once the suspicions of the
reader. For Moses de Leon could not have supposed for a moment that the
insertion in the middle of an Aramaic sentence of two verses from Ibn
Gabirol's "Keter Malkut" (which, being recited in the synagogues, were known
to every Jew) could have escaped detection; nor could he have thought that a
quotation from the Cuzari, which was so much read and commented upon at that
time, would pass unperceived by his contemporaries.

Had Moses de Leon, who was a talented writer and an able scholar,
wished for mercenary purposes to forge a work in the name of Simeon ben Yoḥai,
he would have been more careful in his statements and would certainly have
employed the Hebrew language, first, because the tanna would have written in
that language, and, second, because a work in Hebrew, being easier to
understand, would have gained a far wider circle of readers, and consequently
a larger number of purchasers, than would one written in a peculiar Aramaic
dialect that was accessible to only a few. Were the pseudepigraphic "Sefer
Yeẓirah," "Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eli'ezer," "Sefer Hekalot," "Sefer ha-Bahir," etc.,
any the less believed to be the works of those to whom they were attributed
simply because they were written in plain Hebrew and not in Aramaic? But apart
from all these considerations, the contents of the Zohar
clearly indicate that the work is the production not of a single author or of
a single period, but of many authors, periods, and civilizations; for it
combines the most puzzling incongruities and irreconcilable contradictions
with lofty ideas and conceptions which would do honor to a genius of modern
times, and also mystic teachings of the Talmudic period with those of the
Geonim and later Cabala. To determine the country in which the work originated
and the time at which its teachings began to develop, it is necessary to
ascertain where and when the Jews became intimately acquainted with the Hindu
philosophy, which more than any other exercised an influence on the
Zohar. As an instance of Hindu teachings in the
Zohar may be quoted the following passage:(Zohar,
iii. 9b).

"In the book of Hamnuna the Elder we learn through some extended
explanations that the earth turns upon itself in the form of a circle; that
some are on top, the others below; that all creatures change in aspect,
following the manner of each place, but keeping in the same position. But
there are some countries on the earth which are lighted while others are in
darkness; and there are countries in which there is constantly day or in which
at least the night continues only some instants. . . . These secrets were made
known to the men of the secret science, but not to the geographers"

The theory that the earth is a sphere revolving on its own axis,
which immortalized Copernicus, was previously known only to the Hindus, who
were instructed in the truth of it by Aryabhatta in the first century before
the common era. As far as is known, the Vedanta school of the Hindu
philosophers found nowhere, outside of its place of origin, so many admirers
as in Persia in the eighth century. Under its influence the Mohammedans of
Persia founded many mystic sects, among them being that of the Sufis, who for
many centuries were very numerous. This mystic movement did not fail to
exercise an influence upon the Persian Jews, and there arose among them
various sects, such as the 'Isawites, the Yudghanites, etc., the tenets of
which, so far as can be ascertained from the scanty information concerning
them that is available, bore more or less the stamp of the Vedanta philosophy.
Thus the Yudghanites abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the
literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and
believed in metempsychosis, etc. All these sects had their sacred writings,
which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the
Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the
upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas and other Brahmanic
scriptures. In its peregrinations from Persia to Spain the
Zohar probably received many additions and interpolations, among which
may have been the various names of the Tannaim and Amoraim, as well as the
allusions to historical events.

The Zohar is not considered complete
without the addition of certain appendixes, which are attributed either to the
same author or to some of his immediate disciples. These supplementary
portions are printed as part of the text with separate titles, or in separate
columns. They are as follows: "Sifra di-Ẓeni'uta," consisting of five
chapters, in which are chiefly discussed the questions involved in the
creation, such as the transition from the infinite to the finite, that from
absolute unity to multifariousness, that from pure intelligence to matter,
etc.; "Idra Rabbah," in which the teachings of the preceding portion are
enlarged upon and developed; and "Idra Zuṭa," giving a résumé of the two
preceding sections. The characteristic features of these portions are the
absence of the doctrine of the
En Sof, and the use of the appellation "Ẓaddiḳ" for
the ninth Sefirah, which show that these writings are of an earlier period. To
the larger appendixes are added the following fragments: "Raze de Razin,"
dealing with the physiognomy of the Cabala and the connection of the soul with
the body; "Sefer
Hekalot," describing the seven heavenly halls,
paradise, and hell; Ra'ya Mehemna," giving a conversation between Moses, the
prophet Elijah, and Simeon ben Yoḥai on the allegorical import of the Mosaic
commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the rabbinical injunctions; "Sitre
Torah," on various cabalistic topics; "Midrash ha-Ne'elam," explaining
passages of Scripture mystically by way of "remazim" and gemaṭria; "Saba,"
containing a conversation between the prophet Elijah and Simeon ben Yoḥai
about the doctrine of metempsychosis; "Yanuḳa," on the importance of washing
the hands before meals and on similar subjects, written in the name of a child
of Hamnuna Saba, whence the title "Yanuḳa" (child); "Tosefta" and "Matnitin,"
in which are sketched the doctrines of the Sefirot, the emanation of the
primordial light, etc. Besides the Zohar proper,
there are also a "Zohar Ḥadash," on Canticles, and "Tiḳḳunum," both new and
old, which bear a close resemblance to the original work.The
Zohar repeatedly endeavors to impress upon the mind of the reader that
the Biblical narratives and ordinances contain higher truths in addition to
the literal meaning.

"Wo unto the man," says Simeon ben Yoḥai, "who asserts that this
Torah intends to relate only commonplace things and secular narratives; for if
this were so, then in the present times likewise a Torah might be written with
more attractive narratives. In truth, however, the matter is thus: The upper
world and the lower are established upon one and the same principle; in the
lower world is Israel, in the upper world are the angels. When the angels wish
to descend to the lower world, they have to don earthly garments. It this be
true of the angels, how much more so of the Torah, for whose sake, indeed, the
world and the angels were alike created and exist. The world could simply not
have endured to look upon it. Now the narratives of the Torah are its
garments. He who thinks that these garments are the Torah itself deserves to
perish and have no share in the world to come. Wo unto the fools who look no
further when they see an elegant robe! More valuable than the garment is the
body which carries it, and more valuable even than that is the soul which
animates the body. Fools see only the garment of the Torah, the more
intelligent see the body, the wise see the soul, its proper being; and in the
Messianic time the 'upper soul' of the Torah will stand revealed"

"The man," it is said in the "Sifra di Ẓeni'uta," "who is not
acquainted with this book is like the savage barbarian who was a stranger to
the usages of civilized life. He sowed wheat, but was accustomed to partake of
it only in its natural condition. One day this barbarian came into a city, and
good bread was placed before him. Finding it very palatable, he inquired of
what material it was made, and was informed that it was made of wheat.
Afterward one offered to him a fine cake kneaded in oil. He tasted it, and
again asked: 'And this, of what is it made?' and he received the same answer,
of wheat. Finally, one placed before him the royal pastry, kneaded with oil
and honey. He again asked the same question, to which he obtained a like
reply. Then he said: 'At my house I am in possession of all these things. I
partake daily of them in root, and cultivate the wheat from which they are
made.' In this crudeness he remained a stranger to the delights one draws from
the wheat, and the pleasures were lost to him. It is the same with those who
stop at the general principles of knowledge because they are ignorant of the
delights which one may derive from the further investigation and application
of these principles."

The Zohar assumes four kinds of
Biblical exegesis: "Peshaṭ" (literal meaning), "Remez" (allusion), "Derash"
(anagogical), and "Sod" (mystic). The initial letters of the words "Peshaṭ," "Remez,"
"Derash," and "Sod" form together the word "PaRDeS" (Paradise), which became
the designation for the fourfold meaning of which the mystical sense is the
highest part. The mystic allegorism is based by the
Zohar on the principle that all visible things, the phenomena of nature
included, have besides their exoteric reality an esoteric reality also,
destined to instruct man in that which is invisible. This principle is the
necessary corollary of the fundamental doctrine of the
Zohar. The universe being, according to that doctrine, a gradation of
emanations, it follows that the human mind may recognize in each effect the
supreme mark, and thus ascend to the cause of all causes. This ascension,
however, can only be made gradually, after the mind has attained four various
stages of knowledge; namely: (1) the knowledge of the exterior aspect of
things, or, as the Zohar calls it (ii. 36b), "the
vision through the mirror that projects an indirect light"; (2) the knowledge
of the essence of things, or "the vision through the mirror that projects a
direct light"; (3) the knowledge through intuitive representation; and (4) the
knowledge through love, since the Law reveals its secrets to those only who
love it (ii. 99b).

After the knowledge through love comes the ecstatic state which is
applied to the most holy visions. To enter the state of ecstasy one had to
remain motionless, with the hand between the knees, absorbed in contemplation
and murmuring prayers and hymns. There were seven ecstatic stages, each of
which was marked by a vision of a different color. At each new stage the
contemplative entered a heavenly hall ("hekal") of a different hue, until he
reached the seventh, which was colorless, and the appearance of which marked
both the end of his contemplation and his lapse into unconsciousness. The
Zohar gives the following illustration of an ecstatic state:

"Once," says R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, "I was plunged in a contemplative
ecstasy, and I beheld a sublime ray of a brilliant light which illumined 325
circles, and amid which something dark was bathing. Then the dark point,
becoming bright, began to float toward the deep and sublime sea, where all the
splendors were gathering. I then asked the meaning of this vision, and I was
answered that it represented the forgiveness of sins."

The Zohar spread among the Jews with
remarkable celerity. Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in
Spain before it was quoted by many cabalists, among whom was the Italian
mystical writer Menahem Recanati. Its authority was so well established in
Spain in the fifteenth century that Joseph ibn Shem-Ṭob drew from it arguments
in his attacks against Maimonides. It exercised so great a charm upon the
cabalists that they could not believe for an instant that such a book could
have been written by any mortal unless he had been inspired from above; and
this being the case, it was to be placed on the same level with the Bible.
Even representatives of Talmudic Judaism began to regard it as a sacred book
and to invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions. They
were attracted by its glorification of man, its doctrine of immortality, and
its ethical principles, which are more in keeping with the spirit of
Talmudical Judaism than are those taught by the philosophers. While Maimonides
and his followers regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality
is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect, the
Zohar declared him to be the lord of the creation, whose immortality is
solely dependent upon his morality. Indeed, according to the
Zohar, the moral perfection of man influences the ideal world of the
Sefirot; for although the Sefirot expect everything from the En Sof, the En
Sof itself is dependent upon man: he alone can bring about the divine
effusion. The dew that vivifies the universe flows from the just. By the
practise of virtue and by moral perfection man may increase the outpouring of
heavenly grace. Even physical life is subservient to virtue. This, says the
Zohar, is indicated in the words "for the Lord God had not caused it to
rain" (Gen. ii. 5), which mean that there had not yet been beneficent action
in heaven because man had not yet given the impulsion.

These and similar teachings appealed to the Talmudists and made them
overlook the Zohar's disparitiesand
contrasts and its veiled hostility to the Talmud. The influences of the
Zohar on Judaism were both beneficial and deleterious. On the one hand,
the Zohar was praiseworthy because it opposed
formalism, stimulated the imagination and feelings, and restored prayer (which
had gradually become a mere external religious exercise) to the position it
had occupied for centuries among the Jews as a means of transcending earthly
affairs for a time and placing oneself in union with God; and on the other
hand, it was to be censured because it propagated many superstitious beliefs,
and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations
peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad
influences. Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its
commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to
substitute a mystic Judaism for the rabbinical cult. Thus the Sabbath, with
all its ceremonies, began to be looked upon as the embodiment of the Divinity
in temporal life, and every ceremony performed on that day was considered to
have an influence upon the superior world. Zoharic
elements even crept into the liturgy of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and the religious poets not only used in their compositions the
allegorism and symbolism of the Zohar, but even
adopted its style, the characteristic features of which were the
representation of the highest thoughts by human emblems and human passions,
and the use of erotic terminology to illustrate the relations between man and
God, religion being identical with love. Thus, in the language of many Jewish
poets the beloved one's curls indicate the mysteries of the Deity; sensuous
pleasures, and especially intoxication, typify the highest degree of divine
love as ecstatic contemplation; while the wine-room represents merely the
state through which the human qualities merge or are exalted into those of the
Deity.

The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was
shared by many Christian scholars, such as Pico de Mirandola, Reuchlin,
Ægidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs
of the truth of Christianity. They were led to this belief by the analogies
existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar
and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption
of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which is expressed in the
Zohar in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He
reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus
symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:]
first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him
the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception.
He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' ["'Ayin"]" (Zohar, iii. 288b).
This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the
Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the
Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to
certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the
Zohar. Shortly after the publication of the work (Mantua and Cremona,
1558) Joseph de Voisin translated extracts from it which deal with the soul.
He was followed by many others, among whom was Knorr, Baron von Rosenroth, who
rendered into Latin the introduction, the "Sifra di-Ẓeni'uta," the "Idra
Rabbah," and the "Idra Zuṭa" ("Kabbala Denudata," Sulzbach, 1677).

The disastrous effects of the Shabbethai Ẓebi movement, which was
greatly fostered by the obnoxious influences of the
Zohar, damped the enthusiasm that had been felt for the book, and the
representatives of Talmudic Judaism began to look upon it with suspicion.
Especially was this the case when the Shabbethaian movement had degenerated
into religious mysticism and had produced the anti-Talmudic sectaries who
styled themselves "Zoharites," and who, under the leadership of Jacob Frank,
finished by embracing Christianity. However, the Zohar
is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Ḥasidim,
who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and
ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Warning: this
site does not subscribe to some of the heretical views that appear on other
sites that argue against the Zohar--that would have us believe that today's halakha
(law) will be trumped or
accompanied by a new TORAH. That type of displacement theology is not what
Jeremiah the Prophet meant
by Brith Hhadasha (a New Covenant). The only Jewish source I have ever found for
that is one questionable Midrash. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a nutshell, Saadhya's argument is that since haShem is totally unknowable, He created the Glory to show a prophet that their vision is true and not a personal
hallucination

Perhaps, a full copy can be obtained at
http://www22.brinkster.com/dardei/wars%20of%20god/index.htm
. The latter site has nothing to do with the Camilla site.

Necessary
Background About Yemenite JewsDuring the first Temple time period, the Prophet Jeremiah prophesied concerning
the forthcoming destruction and warned that those desiring to follow the word of
G-D could save themselves by leaving Jerusalem and Israel. Only 80 Hachamim who
feared the Lord and believed the words of the Prophet gathered their families
and belongings and departed from Jerusalem about twenty years before the
destruction. They directed themselves southward across the Arabian Peninsula
until they came to a small mountain where they received stellar signs (of which
they had great knowledge) that they must settle in that place. The name of that
mountain Gebel Innegum - Mountain of the Stars was given by them. This
represents the true origin of Yemenite Jewry. It also explains why Yemenite
tradition has the advantage of unbrokenness when compared to all other
traditions. This doesn't mean that the Temani tradition can claim
superiority in all areas. However, the fact that the
Yemenite tradition goes directly back to the period before the destruction of
the First Temple is extremely significant. It is the only tradition that did not
pass through the confusion and desperation, the persecution and dispersion
connected with the hhorban (destruction) of the First Temple or, later on in
history, of the Second Temple. The Temani tradition is undeniably the oldest
continuous oral tradition (from the first Temple Times) in existence! But is
that the real reason for holding Temani? The real reason to hold Temani is
that they refused to turn their backs on the Talmudic Judaism of the
Sanhedrin. But the argument of accuracy and antiquity also has a strong
appeal.

The
Yemenite Jews remember how their first fathers answered with wise steadfastness
to Ezra’s ‘order’ that they leave Yemen and return to the Holy Land, “We
did not participate in the first destruction and we do not desire to witness the
second destruction. We will return to the Holy Land, G-D willing, for the time
of the Third and Final Temple which will never be destroyed.”

"Some say that Ezra
zs"l died outside the Holy Land, at Hhuzistan in Persia on a journey to the
king of that land. Perhaps this was the realization of the curse pronounced upon
him by the Jews of Yemen, who were angered when Ezra cursed them first for their
refusal to return to Judea. His malediction upon them was that they and their
descendants would forever live in poverty. In turn they cursed him that he would
end his days outside the Holy Land. Either way, the city of Babylon was
completely destroyed by the Persians and all the prophecies of the prophets were
fulfilled against it just before Ezra's death." (Legends of the Rabbis,
Nadich)

Although Yemenite
Jews were not totally isolated from the Jewish world (halakhically) and received
major news items through its sea ports, the undeniably unique location of Yemen
(as well as the timing of their early arrival) has allowed them to maintain a
Judaism with very little external influence-- for thousands of years.

One example (everyone's
favorite) is the retention of the First Temple musical (prayer) system based on
4th and 5th notes which --can be musically demonstrated to have originated in
the first Bet baMiqdash (Temple). The modern day prayer intonation and scale
systems of today’s Jews (for the most part) incorporate the musical systems of
their European and / or Spanish neighbors--not that this was a bad thing. BUT
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE with the Temanim. Any good music-history teacher can
explain the differences between the Old Semitic (limited notes) system vs. the
European and / or Spanish systems of "the west" that remain prevalent
amongst Jewish communities throughout the world.

Another example seems
to be the language and tune in which the Torah is chanted. Anyone who has had
the privilege of listening to this pronunciation and rhythm --during a Torah
reading -- understands this truth. A sample reading (from one region in Yemen)
can be found at http://www.chayas.com/kriah.asf
. Also, see http://www.chayas.com/pronounceparchi.htm
for scientific proof of musical antiquity.

The preservation
of prayers (and pronunciation) in old Aramaic also testifies to the pureness of
Yemenite Jewish tradition. Old Aramaic prayers- that have long been
forgotten by today’s Ashkenaz and Sepharadic Jews-- remain a vibrant part of
the Temani service to this day. Please refer to http://www.chayas.com/pessah.htm
for specific examples. Also... See also -- The Sacred Bridge: The
Interdependence of Liturgy and Music in Synagogue and Church during the First
Millennium, Vol. 2 -
Eric
Werner.

Of
all the traditions that went out of their way to promote "Shalom Bayith"
amongst Jews -including the abandonment of a good portion of their Temani masora
to the detriment of the Jewish world-- the Temani tradition is
way out in front. The Qafahh family (for example) exemplified the concept of
"rodef shalom" with actions --more than most-- in my estimation. This
reason alone beats out all the other reasons for learning (or identifying with)
the Temani masora. I (personally) could never give up the things he did for the
sake of peace. That's what makes me so tiny in comparison. In a strong way, you
can't get more non-partisan than that. But my purpose is to salvage and / or
revive what is left. Because there must be a point where "our (Torah) heritage
will not be forsaken". Sinai can not and will
not be forgotten (ie: modified) under the disguise of 'shalom bayith' any longer. It has gone on for too long during these past 50
years--especially in a favorite country of mine --which shall remain anonymous..

These facts are all documented. Anyone can verify them with a little bit of research.

Regarding Tsimtsum and the quote from Rav. Laqish as follows: Resh Lakish
comments the Name Shadai, I am he who said to the world Enough! This teaching
backs up a thought of Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Rav Judah said in the name
of Rav: when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, the latter
stretched out to infinity-like the threads of a loom that endlessly intertwined;
then they stopped as it is said: "The pillars of the heavens tremble, they are
struck with wonder when he threatens them. Job 26:11).

First of all, we need to see the real Lashon here. What does infinity-like
mean? And second, this appears to be a reference to G-D's creation, not G-D
himself.